Pathfinder Is Failing Children: What Litigants in Person Are Really Seeing Inside the Family Courts
Pathfinder is being presented as the future of private family law: quicker, more child-focused, and more responsive to harm. But many litigants in person are experiencing something very different — delay, weak analysis, overstretched Cafcass involvement, and children left suffering while adults talk about reform. If the system says it is now listening to children, the real question is whether it is truly understanding them.
Pathfinder, Cafcass and the Children Still Falling Through the Cracks
Why Many Litigants in Person Feel the Family Court Reforms Are Failing the Very Children They Claim to Protect
There is a growing narrative within the family justice system that the new “child focused courts” model — previously known as the private law Pathfinder — represents a transformational shift in private family law proceedings.
Cafcass leaders have described the reform as a major opportunity to see more children, earlier in proceedings. The judiciary has welcomed the national rollout of Child Focused Courts across England and Wales. Cafcass’s own Strategic Plan 2026–2029 describes the reform as one of the most significant changes to private family law proceedings in a generation.
On paper, this sounds encouraging.
But many parents living through the family court system are asking a very different question:
The Question Families Are Asking
If the system is improving, why are so many children still losing meaningful relationships with safe parents?
At JSH Law, we speak to litigants in person who describe delay, weak safeguarding, inconsistent Cafcass involvement, poor-quality reports, minimisation of coercive control, procedural chaos, and a system that often appears overwhelmed long before a child’s voice is properly heard.
For many families, Pathfinder does not feel child-focused.
It feels process-focused.
And children are paying the price.
A System Under Pressure — and Children Caught in the Middle
Recent reporting on Cafcass and private law reform states that Cafcass family court advisers are expected to move from seeing children in around 30% of private law cases to approximately 75%.
That sounds positive. Children should be seen. Their wishes and feelings matter. Their lived experience should be central to proceedings about where they live, who they spend time with, and whether they are safe.
But the problem is not the principle.
The problem is implementation.
The Reality on the Ground
Many litigants in person experience a system where:
- Cafcass officers appear overstretched;
- reports vary dramatically in quality;
- safeguarding concerns are not always analysed with sufficient depth;
- coercive control can be misunderstood or minimised;
- children wait months to be properly heard;
- interim arrangements drift into long-term realities;
- and the parent-child relationship can be damaged before the court has fully understood the facts.
Once contact has broken down for months — sometimes longer — the damage to the child’s relationship with a parent can become profound.
Children do not experience delay in the same way institutions do. A year in adult litigation is frustrating. A year in a child’s life can be formative.
“The Child’s Voice” Means Very Little If the System Cannot Properly Analyse What It Is Hearing
One of the central ideas behind Pathfinder and Child Focused Courts is the increased use of Child Impact Reports. These reports are intended to bring the child’s experience into the case earlier.
That is a good aim.
But speaking to a child is not the same as understanding the dynamics around that child.
Children caught in private law proceedings may be navigating:
- coercive control;
- loyalty conflict;
- emotional pressure;
- fear;
- trauma responses;
- attachment disruption;
- adult narratives imposed upon them;
- and anxiety about upsetting either parent.
Seeing a Child Is Not the Same as Understanding a Child
A short wishes-and-feelings exercise cannot safely untangle complex family dynamics unless the practitioner has the time, training, evidence, and analytical framework to understand what is really happening.
That is particularly important where domestic abuse, coercive control, parental manipulation, alienating behaviours, or post-separation abuse are alleged.
A rushed assessment may give the appearance of listening to the child while still failing to understand the pressures operating around them.
The Harm Panel Warned About These Problems in 2020
The Ministry of Justice’s landmark Harm Panel Report, formally titled Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, identified serious structural problems in the family court system.
The report found that domestic abuse was too often minimised, children’s voices were not sufficiently heard, and a pro-contact culture could create unsafe outcomes.
That report was published in 2020.
Six years later, many litigants in person still describe the same problems.
Six Years After the Harm Panel
The family justice system has had years to absorb the findings of the Harm Panel. Yet many parents still report:
- domestic abuse being minimised;
- coercive control being misunderstood;
- children’s expressed wishes being taken at face value without enough analysis;
- unsafe contact being normalised;
- and victims being treated as “difficult” when they raise safeguarding concerns.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has continued to raise concerns about the experience of victims and survivors in the family court. Her work on the Family Court and domestic abuse highlights continuing concerns about trauma, unsafe outcomes, and cultural change still being needed.
The Problem With “Speed” in Family Justice
One of the major selling points of Pathfinder is speed.
Children should not spend years in proceedings. That is right.
But speed without depth is dangerous.
A flawed assessment completed quickly is not justice.
A weak safeguarding analysis produced within target timescales is not safeguarding.
A child’s relationship with a parent should not be permanently damaged because the system is trying to move quickly through an overloaded list.
Fast Is Not the Same as Safe
The family court should not confuse administrative efficiency with child protection. A quick report is only useful if it is accurate, balanced, properly evidenced, and alert to coercive and controlling dynamics.
Many litigants in person feel railroaded through proceedings where allegations are not properly tested, evidence is not properly analysed, and interim arrangements become entrenched before the court has reached a fully informed view.
In private children proceedings, “temporary” can become a childhood.
The Reality for Litigants in Person
The family court is increasingly populated by parents without legal representation.
The Law Society has previously reported that in a significant proportion of private family law cases, both parties are unrepresented. This matters because litigants in person are expected to navigate a legally and emotionally complex process while often being under extreme stress.
They may be expected to:
- understand safeguarding law and procedure;
- prepare evidence;
- respond to Cafcass reports;
- challenge weak recommendations;
- understand Practice Direction 12J;
- prepare position statements;
- draft witness statements;
- deal with disclosure;
- understand fact-finding hearings;
- and advocate in emotionally charged hearings.
The Litigant in Person Problem
Private family law reform cannot work properly if the system continues to assume that unrepresented parents can somehow perform the role of solicitor, evidence manager, safeguarding analyst, advocate, and traumatised parent all at once.
This is one of the reasons JSH Law exists: to help litigants in person bring structure, clarity, chronology, evidence management, and procedural understanding to cases that can otherwise feel impossible to manage alone.
The Difficult Truth About Cafcass
There are undoubtedly excellent Cafcass officers. Many care deeply about children and are trying to do difficult work in difficult conditions.
But systems matter more than individual goodwill.
The current system appears structurally overstretched. Cafcass’s own strategic materials refer to the scale of reform, the need for workforce capacity, and the importance of ensuring areas do not go live without sufficient practitioners.
Recent reporting has also highlighted demand pressures, caseload pressures, recruitment issues, and sickness absence.
Good People Cannot Fix a Broken Structure Alone
When professionals are overloaded, analytical quality is at risk. When analytical quality drops, children are at risk of becoming case numbers rather than fully understood human beings.
This is not about attacking individual Cafcass officers. It is about asking whether the structure they are working within is capable of delivering what children actually need.
Family Courts Are Still Struggling to Understand Coercive Control
One of the greatest ongoing concerns in private law children proceedings remains the handling of coercive and controlling behaviour.
Coercive control is rarely simple. It is not always obvious. It often involves patterns rather than single incidents.
It may include:
- emotional manipulation;
- gaslighting;
- financial control;
- threats;
- isolation;
- litigation abuse;
- controlling communication;
- weaponising children;
- undermining the other parent’s relationship with the child;
- and creating a climate of fear or instability.
The statutory definition of domestic abuse is now set out in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Act expressly recognises controlling or coercive behaviour, and it also recognises that children can be victims of domestic abuse where they see, hear, or experience the effects of abuse.
Children Can Be Victims of Domestic Abuse
Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, section 3, a child who sees, hears, or experiences the effects of domestic abuse is treated as a victim of domestic abuse in their own right.
This matters enormously in private law proceedings.
A child is not merely “caught in the middle” when there is coercive control. A child may be directly harmed by the atmosphere, fear, pressure, instability, and emotional consequences of abuse.
Could Technology and AI Help?
This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable for some professionals.
Many litigants are now asking whether properly designed legal technology and AI tools could help the family justice system analyse evidence more consistently.
AI is not a replacement for judges, social workers, lawyers, or safeguarding professionals.
But it may become a valuable support tool.
Where AI Could Help
Used ethically, transparently, and carefully, AI could assist with:
- chronology analysis;
- identifying patterns of coercive behaviour;
- flagging inconsistencies in evidence;
- mapping allegations to statutory definitions;
- organising large bundles;
- supporting litigants in person with procedural preparation;
- helping professionals identify safeguarding issues earlier;
- and reducing administrative overload.
AI does not get tired halfway through a caseload.
It does not experience compassion fatigue.
It does not forget key chronology points after a difficult week.
It does not unconsciously prefer the more articulate litigant because they present better in a short meeting.
But AI also carries risks.
It can be biased. It can be wrong. It can hallucinate. It can reinforce existing systemic assumptions if designed badly.
That is why AI in family justice must be carefully governed, auditable, transparent, and used as a support mechanism — not as a substitute for human judgment.
The Sensible Position on AI
The question is not whether AI should replace Cafcass, judges, or lawyers. It should not. The question is whether carefully designed legal technology could reduce avoidable error, improve consistency, assist litigants in person, and help professionals manage evidence more safely.
What Would Actually Help Children?
If the family justice system genuinely wants to become child-focused, it must move beyond language and confront the harder structural issues.
1. Smaller Caseloads
No safeguarding professional can consistently produce high-quality analysis while carrying an unmanageable caseload.
2. Better Training on Coercive Control
Not superficial training. Not tick-box training. Deep, practical, behavioural training on post-separation abuse, coercive control, trauma, litigation abuse, and child impact.
3. Proper Support for Litigants in Person
Litigants in person need clear procedural guidance, accessible legal information, structured templates, and affordable support to prepare their cases properly.
4. Independent Oversight of Cafcass Report Quality
There must be more meaningful accountability where reports are weak, incomplete, poorly reasoned, or fail to engage with safeguarding evidence.
5. Better Evidence Management
Courts need better systems for handling chronologies, messages, allegations, police evidence, school evidence, medical evidence, and patterns of behaviour.
6. Ethical Use of Legal Technology
AI and legal technology should be explored as tools to improve consistency, identify safeguarding concerns, support litigants in person, and reduce administrative burden.
7. A Realistic Understanding of Child Time
Children cannot wait years for adults to perfect a system around them.
The Central Issue
Family justice reform must be measured by what happens to children in real cases — not by whether a new process sounds better on paper.
What Litigants in Person Can Do Now
If you are involved in private law children proceedings and you are worried about a Cafcass report, safeguarding analysis, contact breakdown, or Pathfinder process, you need to get organised early.
Practical steps may include:
- keeping a clear chronology;
- saving all relevant communication;
- identifying specific safeguarding concerns;
- mapping allegations to evidence;
- understanding PD12J;
- preparing focused position statements;
- responding carefully to Cafcass reports;
- asking the court for specific directions where evidence is missing;
- and avoiding emotional, unfocused submissions wherever possible.
JSH Law Can Help
JSH Law supports litigants in person with court preparation, chronologies, statements, evidence organisation, Cafcass report responses, safeguarding issue mapping, and hearing preparation.
If you are representing yourself in private children proceedings and feel overwhelmed, you do not have to manage the entire process alone.
Final Thoughts
There are good people inside Cafcass. There are dedicated judges. There are committed practitioners. But good intentions alone do not fix structural problems.
Many litigants in person feel the family justice system remains reactive, inconsistent, overloaded, and too often incapable of properly understanding the complexity of coercive control, domestic abuse, and long-term parent-child harm.
Pathfinder may be intended as reform.
But from the perspective of many families living through it, it risks becoming another procedural redesign that does not address the deeper cultural and operational problems underneath.
Children deserve more than optimistic policy language.
They deserve systems capable of consistently protecting them.
And right now, many families do not believe we are there yet.
Children Cannot Wait
A delayed childhood cannot be repaired by a better policy document years later. If reform is not felt by children and families on the ground, it is not yet reform.
Regulatory & Editorial Notice
JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We provide litigation support, procedural assistance, legal information, and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. We do not conduct litigation or carry out reserved legal activities.
This article is general commentary on matters of public interest relating to the family justice system, Cafcass, Child Focused Courts, domestic abuse, safeguarding, access to justice, and litigants in person. Any references to lived experience, poor practice, or systemic concern are made in general and anonymised terms. No confidential details of any individual case are disclosed.
This article does not constitute legal advice. Readers should obtain advice from a qualified legal professional about their own circumstances.
