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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.