© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.Child Focused Courts Must Still Be Fair: Re C [2026] EWCA Civ 1216
The Court of Appeal has given its first judgment on the new Child Focused Court model. Re C [2026] EWCA Civ 1216 examines domestic abuse, Cafcass recommendations, fact-finding, informed agreement, procedural fairness and section 91(14).
Child Focused Courts Must Still Be Fair: Re C [2026] EWCA Civ 1216 and Domestic Abuse
A faster Family Court is not automatically a fairer Family Court. The new Child Focused Court model is designed to resolve private children cases earlier and with better information — but speed does not replace safeguarding, proper fact-finding or a parent’s right to participate effectively.
That is the central importance of Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216, handed down by the Court of Appeal on 29 September 2026.
It is the first Court of Appeal judgment dealing directly with the new Child Focused Court model, previously known as Pathfinder.
The case involved four children, a background of domestic abuse, a previous final order requiring the father’s contact to remain supervised, later cross-applications about child arrangements, a Child Impact Report recommending indirect contact only, and a mother who argued on appeal that the process had not allowed her properly to present the continuing pattern of abuse and risk.
The Court of Appeal did not accept that the Child Focused Court procedure had made the hearing unfair.
It upheld the judge’s decision to order limited supervised contact with safeguards.
But that is only part of the story.
The Court also gave important guidance about domestic abuse, fact-finding, agreement, procedural fairness and the way Child Focused Courts must operate as the model expands nationally.
The case in 30 seconds
- The case concerned four children and a significant background of domestic abuse.
- A previous consent order made in October 2024 provided that the father’s time with the children should remain supervised.
- Further difficulties led to cross-applications within the Child Focused Court process.
- The Child Impact Report ultimately recommended indirect contact only.
- The first-instance judge instead made an order for limited supervised direct contact, subject to conditions and safeguards.
- The mother appealed, arguing among other matters that post-separation abuse and continuing risk had not been properly addressed and that the streamlined Child Focused Court process had prevented her from properly presenting her case.
- The Court of Appeal rejected those grounds and held that the judge had properly applied the relevant law, including PD12J.
- The court confirmed that the judge was entitled to depart from the recommendation in the Child Impact Report.
- Rights of Women intervened and raised wider concerns about domestic abuse, informed agreement and procedural fairness within the new model.
- Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru also intervened.
- The mother’s appeal did succeed in relation to a section 91(14) order made against her. The Court of Appeal held that her behaviour could not properly be equated with the father’s.
Why this case matters now
The Child Focused Court model is no longer a small pilot.
All Family Courts in Wales are already operating under the model, and the Government has committed to rolling it out across England and Wales nationally.
Re C is therefore not simply about one family. It is appellate guidance on a procedure that will increasingly become the ordinary way private children cases are managed.
Are you in Child Focused Court proceedings involving domestic abuse or safeguarding?
The new model moves quickly. That makes early case preparation particularly important.
JSH Law can help you identify:
- what the court is actually being asked to decide;
- which allegations are agreed, admitted or disputed;
- whether fact-finding may be necessary;
- what the Child Impact Report does and does not establish;
- what evidence is missing;
- how domestic abuse and post-separation behaviour affect welfare and risk;
- what participation directions may be needed; and
- what precise orders or case-management directions you need to ask for.
In this article
- What happened in Re C
- What the Child Focused Court model actually changes
- Why the mother appealed
- Why the Court of Appeal upheld the supervised-contact order
- Whether Child Focused Courts still require fact-finding hearings
- Why limited admissions need careful scrutiny
- How domestic abuse and post-separation abuse should be analysed
- Whether judges must follow Cafcass or Child Impact Report recommendations
- Why agreement must be genuine and informed
- Why procedural fairness still matters in a streamlined model
- What happened to the section 91(14) order
- What litigants in person should do differently in a Child Focused Court
Case snapshot
| Case | Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) |
| Citation | [2026] EWCA Civ 1216 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Appeal from | Family Court sitting at Wrexham |
| Court below | Mr Justice McKendrick |
| Court of Appeal | Sir Stephen Cobb, President of the Family Division; Lord Justice Moylan; Lord Justice Zacaroli |
| Date | 29 September 2026 |
| Core issues | Child arrangements, domestic abuse, Child Focused Court procedure, fact-finding, procedural fairness, Cafcass recommendations and section 91(14) |
| Outcome | Appeal against the child-arrangements decision dismissed; appeal concerning the section 91(14) order against the mother allowed |
What happened before the appeal?
The proceedings concerned four children.
There was already a history of domestic abuse by the father towards the mother and the children.
A first set of proceedings had concluded with a final consent order in October 2024.
Under that order, the father’s time with the children was to remain supervised.
But the difficulties did not end when that order was made.
Further issues arose and both parents made fresh applications concerning child arrangements.
Those applications were dealt with under the Child Focused Court procedure.
A Child Impact Report was prepared.
By the time of the final hearing, the mother’s position had moved from professionally supervised contact to the position recommended in the Child Impact Report:
indirect contact only.
The judge did not accept that recommendation in full.
Instead, he ordered limited supervised direct contact subject to safeguards and conditions.
The mother appealed.
What did the mother say had gone wrong?
The appeal raised several interlinked concerns.
The mother argued that the court had not adequately addressed the continuing impact of domestic abuse and post-separation behaviour.
She also argued that the first-instance judge had departed from the Child Impact Report recommendation without properly addressing the risk.
And she challenged the fairness of the procedure itself.
Her case was that the Child Focused Court model had been treated as requiring:
- a short hearing;
- limited oral evidence;
- no fuller factual investigation;
- and a restricted opportunity for her to present the domestic-abuse case she wished the court to consider.
An important distinction
Those were grounds of appeal advanced by the mother.
The Court of Appeal did not find that the first-instance judge had in fact used the Child Focused Court model unfairly in that way.
What did the Court of Appeal decide?
The Court of Appeal accepted that domestic abuse formed an important part of the background.
But it concluded that the judge below had properly applied the relevant legal framework, including Practice Direction 12J.
The Court did not accept that the hearing had been procedurally unfair.
Nor did it conclude that the judge was bound to follow the Child Impact Report’s recommendation of indirect contact only.
The first-instance judge had been entitled, on the material before the court, to make an order for limited supervised direct contact subject to appropriate safeguards.
That part of the appeal therefore failed.
This is not a judgment saying “Child Focused Courts can move fast and ignore abuse”
Quite the opposite.
The Court of Appeal upheld the order because it was satisfied that the judge in this case had applied the domestic-abuse and welfare framework properly.
The judgment should not be turned into authority for avoiding fact-finding, restricting evidence or treating speed as a substitute for risk assessment.
What exactly is a Child Focused Court?
The Child Focused Court model was previously known as the Private Law Pathfinder.
Its aim is to move away from a process in which important safeguarding and welfare information is gathered slowly over multiple hearings.
The model instead front-loads information gathering and places the child more directly at the centre of the process.
The structure includes:
The model is intended to be more investigative and less dependent on parties themselves driving every evidential step.
That can be a real improvement.
But it also makes the quality of the early information gathering extremely important.
Child Focused Courts do not abolish fact-finding hearings
This is one of the most important practical points from the case.
The Child Focused Court model is not a “no fact-finding” model.
The current Practice Direction expressly requires the court to ask:
Is there a need for findings of fact to be made?
If the answer is yes, the court must identify the factual issues requiring determination and decide how the fact-finding exercise should take place.
That may be:
- a separate fact-finding hearing; or
- fact-finding conducted as part of a Decision Hearing.
Where domestic abuse is in issue, Practice Direction 12J continues to apply.
If fact-finding is required, the court must gather the evidence necessary for that exercise.
This point matters because the new model is deliberately designed to reduce unnecessary hearings.
Reducing unnecessary hearings is not the same thing as removing necessary hearings.
When is a fact-finding hearing necessary?
Practice Direction 12J remains the starting point where domestic abuse is alleged.
The question is not simply whether allegations exist.
The court must consider whether findings are needed to provide a proper factual foundation for:
- the welfare decision;
- assessment of risk;
- professional advice to the court;
- consideration of future contact;
- and any domestic-abuse intervention.
The court should also consider whether sufficient facts are already established through admissions or other reliable evidence.
That can avoid unnecessary litigation.
But the factual foundation must genuinely be sufficient.
Limited admissions are not a tick-box substitute for understanding abuse
This is particularly important in coercive-control cases.
A party may admit an incident without admitting:
- its seriousness;
- its context;
- the surrounding course of conduct;
- its effect on the other parent;
- its effect on the child;
- or the continuing risk created by the behaviour.
For example, an admission that:
“I sent repeated messages after separation”
may not resolve an allegation that those communications formed part of a continuing pattern of surveillance, intimidation, threats or coercive control.
Likewise, admitting one physical incident may not give the court a sufficient factual basis to understand an alleged wider pattern of coercive behaviour.
The real question is not: “Has something been admitted?”
It is whether the admissions and other established evidence provide a sufficient factual basis for the court to assess harm, future risk and welfare safely.
PD12J expressly requires the court to consider whether admissions provide that sufficient factual basis.
If they do not, fact-finding may still be necessary.
Post-separation abuse does not become irrelevant because the relationship ended
Domestic abuse frequently changes form after separation.
The end of the relationship may not mean the end of:
- controlling behaviour;
- harassment;
- monitoring;
- financial pressure;
- threats;
- abusive communication;
- use of third parties;
- or litigation being used as a continuing mechanism of control.
PD12J requires the court to assess not only past harm but the risk of future harm.
It also requires consideration of the effect of domestic abuse on the child, the parent caring for the child and the parents’ ability to meet the child’s needs.
A historic incident cannot therefore be assessed entirely in isolation if the allegation is that it forms part of a wider pattern continuing after separation.
Read JSH Law’s guide to fact-finding hearings, Cafcass and PD12J →
The Child Impact Report is important — but it does not decide the case
The Child Impact Report is a central feature of the new model.
It may include:
- information from each parent;
- the child’s wishes and feelings;
- safeguarding information;
- police and local-authority information;
- external professional information;
- domestic-abuse risk assessment material;
- participation needs;
- previous court orders;
- and recommendations for next steps and welfare.
That makes it potentially far more significant than the limited early safeguarding material litigants may have been accustomed to under the traditional Child Arrangements Programme.
But the report is still evidence and professional advice to the court.
It is not the judgment.
The welfare decision belongs to the judge or magistrates.
Assesses and advises
The professional gathers information, assesses welfare and risk, records the child’s experience and makes recommendations.
Decides
The judge or magistrates must evaluate the evidence, resolve any necessary factual disputes and determine what order serves the child’s welfare.
Can a judge depart from Cafcass recommendations?
Yes.
Re C is a useful reminder of that.
The Child Impact Report recommended indirect contact only.
The judge instead ordered limited supervised direct contact subject to safeguards.
The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to make that decision.
A Cafcass recommendation carries professional weight.
But it is not binding.
A judge may:
- accept it;
- accept part of it;
- reject it;
- or reach a different welfare conclusion.
What matters is that the court performs its own welfare analysis and has a proper evidential basis for the order it makes.
For litigants in person
If you disagree with a Cafcass recommendation, do not stop at:
“Cafcass got it wrong.”
Identify:
- the specific recommendation;
- the factual assumptions supporting it;
- the evidence relied upon;
- relevant evidence that was omitted or misunderstood;
- the welfare consequence of that error;
- and the order you say should be made instead.
That gives the court something it can actually analyse.
Agreement in a Child Focused Court must be genuine and informed
The Child Focused Model actively encourages safe agreement where that is possible.
But agreement cannot become a procedural shortcut.
Rights of Women intervened in Re C and raised concerns about the position of survivors of domestic abuse where proceedings move quickly and parties may feel pressure to agree.
The President accepted the importance of judicial scrutiny.
That sentence matters.
A person saying “yes” in court does not necessarily answer every question about whether the agreement is safe.
The court may need to consider:
- whether the party understands the proposed order;
- whether they have had a real opportunity to consider it;
- whether they have had access to legal advice where possible;
- whether fear or coercion is affecting their position;
- whether they understand the practical consequences;
- whether safeguarding information remains outstanding;
- and whether the proposed arrangement actually serves the child’s welfare.
The current Child Focused Court Practice Direction itself says that no consent order should be made without scrutiny by the court.
Why speed can create a particular problem for survivors of domestic abuse
One of the attractions of the Child Focused Court model is speed.
The Government reports substantial reductions in the time taken to resolve cases in pilot areas.
That matters.
Children should not spend unnecessary months or years caught in unresolved proceedings.
But accelerated procedure creates another challenge:
the important work happens earlier.
For a litigant dealing with trauma, coercive control, limited finances or no lawyer, that can be difficult.
There may be less time to:
- obtain legal aid;
- gather police or medical records;
- identify witnesses;
- organise a chronology;
- respond to a Child Impact Report;
- prepare a coherent domestic-abuse case;
- or understand what the next hearing may actually decide.
The Legal Aid Agency itself introduced an interim measure in July 2026 specifically to address operational challenges created by the accelerated timelines in Child Focused Model cases.
That is an important reminder that faster procedure requires better front-loaded support, not simply shorter deadlines.
Procedural fairness has not disappeared
The Child Focused Model is investigative rather than conventionally adversarial.
That does not remove fairness.
The Practice Direction expressly requires courts to consider:
- Part 3A and vulnerability;
- participation directions;
- which witnesses are necessary;
- how evidence should be given and tested;
- how to reduce confrontation and trauma;
- what issues actually require investigation;
- and how the hearing should be structured fairly.
A judge may ask questions directly rather than allowing one parent to question the other.
Ground rules can be set.
Special measures and participation directions can be used.
The process can therefore look different from a traditional adversarial hearing.
But a different process still has to give each party a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decisions that affect them and their children.
Read JSH Law’s guide to participation directions and special measures →
What Rights of Women says needs watching
Rights of Women’s intervention is important because it places the legal decision within the reality of how the model is being experienced by some survivors.
The organisation has welcomed aspects of the Child Focused Court approach, including earlier information gathering and greater opportunities for children to be heard.
But it has also raised concerns about implementation.
Those concerns include reports of survivors:
- feeling rushed;
- having insufficient preparation time;
- struggling to obtain legal aid before important hearings;
- feeling unable to explain the full context of abuse;
- and, in some cases, important decisions being considered on the papers without a conventional hearing.
Those are not findings made by the Court of Appeal about the system as a whole.
They are implementation concerns raised by a specialist organisation working with survivors.
That distinction matters.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment does not condemn the Child Focused Court model.
Nor does it give the model a blank cheque.
It confirms that the existing legal protections remain central to the way the model must operate.
The section 91(14) part of the appeal should not be overlooked
The mother’s appeal was not entirely unsuccessful.
The first-instance order had imposed a section 91(14) restriction on both parents.
A section 91(14) order means that the person subject to it must obtain the court’s permission before making specified future Children Act applications.
It is intended as a protective filter.
The Court of Appeal allowed the mother’s appeal against that part of the order.
The Court considered that her behaviour could not properly be compared with the father’s behaviour in a way that justified imposing the same restriction on her.
Why this matters
A section 91(14) order is not a routine administrative addition to a final Child Arrangements Order.
The court must consider why the restriction is necessary in relation to the particular person against whom it is being made.
The fact that litigation has been difficult, lengthy or highly contested does not automatically mean that both parties should be subject to identical restrictions.
Returning cases need careful handling
Re C was not a completely fresh family dispute.
There had already been earlier proceedings and a final order.
This makes the case particularly useful for what the Child Focused Court rules call a returning case.
In returning proceedings, the court may decide that the Child Impact Report can be more focused or “light touch”.
But that does not mean the previous history disappears.
The court may need to understand:
- what the earlier court found;
- what was admitted;
- what the previous order required;
- why the arrangements broke down;
- whether there has been further abuse or harm;
- whether the earlier risk analysis remains current;
- and what has materially changed since the last order.
The current Practice Direction also emphasises judicial continuity, particularly in returning cases and where factual findings have been or may need to be made.
A previous consent order does not necessarily resolve the domestic-abuse history
This is another point worth understanding.
Many private children cases end with an order made by agreement.
That may be a sensible and safe resolution.
But a consent order does not necessarily mean:
- every allegation was withdrawn;
- every allegation was disproved;
- every allegation was admitted;
- the domestic-abuse history ceased to matter;
- or the risk assessment can never be reconsidered.
Future proceedings need an accurate understanding of the status of the earlier material.
Was there a finding?
Was there an admission?
Was the allegation never determined?
Was the final arrangement agreed without factual determination?
Those are materially different evidential positions.
What Re C does not mean
If your case is in a Child Focused Court: what should you do differently?
The most practical consequence of the model is that you cannot assume there will be months of hearings in which to gradually explain your case.
Front-loading matters.
Know exactly what has previously been ordered, found, admitted and left unresolved.
Do not present twenty historical complaints when the court needs to determine four current welfare questions.
Show when the important events occurred, particularly any post-separation conduct and developments since the last order.
Mark clearly what is proven, admitted, disputed or supported only by one person’s account.
Check its factual foundation, safeguarding material, chronology, child’s wishes and recommendations.
If disputed facts prevent a safe welfare decision, identify exactly which factual issues require determination and why.
If trauma, disability, intimidation or communication difficulties affect participation, consider Part 3A directions and special measures.
Do not only explain what is wrong. Tell the court what practical arrangement or direction you say should follow.
If the court says a fact-finding hearing is unnecessary
Do not simply respond:
“I want a fact-finding hearing because the abuse happened.”
The stronger question is:
What decision can the court not safely make without resolving this factual dispute?
For example:
Issue: The father denies a continuing pattern of post-separation monitoring and threats.
Why it matters: The proposed contact arrangements would require repeated communication and handovers between the parents.
Risk issue: Whether the behaviour occurred may materially affect whether those arrangements expose the mother or child to further harm.
Direction sought: Determination of the identified allegations before final welfare arrangements are made.
That connects the factual dispute directly to the welfare decision.
It is much stronger than treating fact-finding as an end in itself.
If you disagree with the Child Impact Report
Work through it line by line.
Ask:
- What source supports this statement?
- Is it a finding, an admission, an allegation or professional opinion?
- Has previous court history been stated accurately?
- Has post-separation conduct been included?
- Does the report identify the impact of abuse on the child?
- Does it analyse future risk?
- Were important records unavailable?
- Were the child’s wishes obtained safely?
- Does the recommendation logically follow from the evidence?
- What do I want the court to do about the problem?
JSH Law: Evidence & Chronology Help →
The bigger question: can Family Court reform be fast and fair?
It needs to be both.
The old private-law system became associated with unacceptable delay.
Children could spend large parts of their childhood waiting for adults and professionals to reach decisions.
That is not harmless.
The Child Focused Model attempts to address that by:
- gathering information earlier;
- hearing children sooner;
- improving multi-agency working;
- reducing unnecessary hearings;
- and moving cases towards decisions more quickly.
Those are legitimate objectives.
But there is a danger if “faster” becomes the measure of success rather than better and safer decision-making.
A case resolved in three months is not a success if important abuse was misunderstood.
A Child Impact Report is not successful merely because it was produced quickly if the factual foundation is incomplete.
A Decision Hearing is not efficient if a party could not properly participate.
And an agreed order is not necessarily safe simply because everybody said “yes” before the court adjourned.
My view: Re C is both reassurance and warning
The judgment should reassure those who support the Child Focused Court model.
The Court of Appeal did not find that the procedure itself produced injustice in this case.
The supervised-contact order stood.
The model is capable of operating lawfully in a case involving domestic abuse.
But the judgment is also a warning against misunderstanding what “streamlined” means.
It does not mean:
less safeguarding.
It does not mean:
fewer findings simply because findings take time.
It does not mean:
Cafcass decides the facts.
It does not mean:
agreement at any price.
And it does not mean:
parties lose the right to a fair opportunity to participate because the model aims for fewer hearings.
What it should mean is:
the right information, gathered earlier, analysed properly and used to make the right welfare decision sooner.
That is a very different proposition.
Why this judgment matters particularly in Wales
Re C came from the Family Court at Wrexham.
Wales was one of the earliest areas to adopt the Pathfinder approach and all Family Courts in Wales are now operating under the Child Focused Model.
For Welsh litigants, this is therefore not a reform waiting somewhere in the future.
It is the current procedural reality.
The lessons from Re C — particularly around domestic abuse, fact-finding, the Child Impact Report, genuine agreement and participation — are immediately relevant to private children proceedings being conducted now.
Practical questions to take into your next Child Focused Court hearing
- What are the precise welfare issues the court needs to determine?
- Which relevant facts are already agreed, admitted or found?
- Which relevant facts remain disputed?
- Does the court need to determine any of those disputes before it can safely assess welfare?
- Does the Child Impact Report accurately record the previous orders and safeguarding history?
- Has the child’s experience of domestic abuse or parental conflict been properly identified?
- Has post-separation behaviour been considered?
- Are participation directions or special measures required?
- If an agreement is proposed, do I genuinely understand and agree with it?
- What exact order or direction am I asking the judge to make today?
Need help preparing for a Child Focused Court case?
Child Focused Court cases can move quickly. If your case involves domestic abuse, disputed evidence, Cafcass recommendations or a returning application, early organisation can make a significant difference.
JSH Law provides defined-scope support for litigants in person, including:
- reviewing Child Impact Reports;
- identifying disputed and established facts;
- domestic-abuse and safeguarding chronologies;
- preparing C1A evidence and responses;
- fact-finding preparation;
- Cafcass and professional-report analysis;
- participation-direction preparation;
- position and witness statements;
- hearing preparation;
- section 91(14) issues;
- returning Child Arrangements cases;
- and organising complex case histories into evidence the court can use.
The aim is to make the court’s job easier without losing the detail that matters to the child’s safety and welfare.
Related JSH Law guidance
Case and legal sources
- Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216
- Practice Direction 36Z / PD12B (Pilot) — Child Focused Model
- Practice Direction 12J — Child Arrangements & Domestic Abuse and Harm
- Ministry of Justice — Child Focused Courts national rollout
- Cafcass Cymru — Child Focused Courts and the position in Wales
- Simons Muirhead Burton — case summary and appeal background
Legal and procedural information checked: 30 September 2026.
Important legal and regulatory information
JSH Law Ltd provides independent non-reserved legal services, litigation support and McKenzie Friend assistance. JSH Law Ltd is not an SRA-authorised solicitors’ firm and does not conduct reserved legal activities.
This article provides general information about family law and procedure in England and Wales. It is not legal advice about an individual case and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
Whether a fact-finding hearing is required depends upon the issues in the individual case and whether findings are necessary for a safe and fair welfare decision. The existence of domestic-abuse allegations does not automatically require a separate fact-finding hearing, but neither does the Child Focused Court procedure remove the obligation to determine relevant disputed facts where necessary.
Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru recommendations are professional welfare advice to the court. The judge or magistrates remain responsible for determining disputed facts where required and for deciding what order, if any, is in the child’s welfare interests.
The discussion of concerns raised by Rights of Women distinguishes those wider implementation concerns from findings actually made by the Court of Appeal in Re C.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
