Proceed with caution to the new child focused courts

New ‘child focused courts’ are being introduced nationwide after what was deemed to be a successful pilot. They come with a simple, but ambitious agenda: to make quicker decisions about children, and with children’s wellbeing at the heart of the process.

For many families, the new approach has shortened what was previously a long, expensive, and stressful journey through the court system. But, as the practice model becomes permanent,  a warning of caution arises in cases involving more complex issues.  Although the pilot has been widely welcomed by many judges, family law professionals, and parents, concerns have also been raised.

In particular, these concerns are more acute in cases involving domestic abuse, coercive control or entrenched parental conflict, where questions have been asked about the fairness, safety, and overall integrity of outcomes under the pilot.

A shift in approach

The Ministry of Justice’s Harm Panel report (2020) concluded that courts were too slow, proceedings too adversarial, and, in some cases, failing children and their families, particularly where domestic abuse was alleged. Children were spending many months living with uncertainty while parents navigated repeated contentious hearings and assessments.  The unspoken reality of this was the emotional turmoil, financial strain, and pervasive stress that protracted proceedings add to daily family life.

Children need decisions that are timely, safe and focused on their real experiences, rather than driven solely by parental dispute. The child focused model is the intended fix.

Instead of a sequence of hearings spread over many months, information is to be gathered much earlier, there are to be fewer hearings, professional input sought earlier, risk is to be identified quickly, and the approach is to be more inquisitorial and problem‑solving.

Early data from the pilot scheme suggests that cases are concluding significantly faster (sometimes by several months). From a systems and resource perspective, this is highly attractive, and parties to proceedings should see a cost efficiency from this too. From a justice perspective, the picture is more nuanced.

Does faster mean better?

Quicker court decisions can limit escalations of conflict, but they do not always address the deeper causes of a dispute.

For parental disagreements (such as handovers, holidays, or schedules of care) that cannot be resolved by non-court dispute resolution options first, the child focused model can work extremely well. Reduced delay should mean less stress for families, less exposure of children to parental conflict, fewer applications or procedural skirmishes, and cost savings. Speed here can genuinely be child‑focused, and we endorse such a route forward for parents whose disputes require judicial intervention.

However, where complexities arise, such as cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, alienation, high conflict dynamics, concerns about emotional harm, or parenting capacity, this new system is facing criticism.

These complexities require time, careful fact‑finding, expert or third-party evidence, and active judicial management. Consequently, the fast-paced model has been argued by some to place children and families in a position of increased vulnerability.

Premature prejudice

The model prides itself on the early involvement of professionals through detailed child impact reports (CIRs). These reports aim to give the court a rounded picture of the child’s lived experience at a very early stage, and may include information about:

• where children live and how they are cared for;
• their day‑to‑day experiences;
• any concerns about harm or risk;
• checks with other agencies;
• previous court or social care involvement;
• support already in place;
• options and recommendations.

Many judges and professionals welcome these reports because they bring the child’s circumstances into focus much earlier. However, some parents find the recommendations difficult, particularly if they feel important contextual factors have been missed or simplified. Reports can consequently be undermined, and trust in the process lost.

For many judges, CIRs are a welcome shift and the springboard to making faster decisions. However, this approach risks contradicting established legal principles which require that evaluative judgments should not be made before any complex factors (such as allegations of alienation, or abuse etc) are properly determined. Premature decision-making risks solidifying a narrative before facts are tested, creating a risk of unfair prejudice, which could become fatal to one parent’s case.

Frontloading professional opinion for the purpose of early decision‑making can disadvantage parents facing false or exaggerated allegations or play into the hands of manipulative or controlling parents; and, fundamentally, it is hard to revisit assumptions later in the case. For solicitors, this heightens the significance of early positioning. For parents, it means that first impressions carry more weight than ever before.

Decisions that will not last?

Swift judgements can stop conflict from escalating, but without deeper investigation, are the issues judged, but ultimately unresolved? Issues such as communication, trauma, emotional stress and difficulties with parenting capacity do not disappear overnight. Without the right support, these decisions may not hold over time, leading families back into court again.

Additional safeguards and issue specific support need to be built in to aid long-term stability of the judgments. Without structured review points, which the previous multi-hearing approach offered, early outcomes may look successful on paper while masking ongoing difficulties in children’s daily lives.

Does non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) fit in?

The family law world now has a plethora of non-court dispute resolution offerings that will be well-known to family law experts and which are designed to help resolve children disputes with as little cost and acrimony as possible. In summary, those offerings include mediation, hybrid mediation, child-inclusive mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, and collaborative law.

There are, however, reasons why it would not be appropriate for parties to use NCDR, including where there are risk factors such as domestic abuse or substance misuse present.

Despite the availability of these NCDR options, the child focused model does not currently integrate them in a mandatory way. At present, a prospective applicant has to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM), unless an exemption applies, before issuing proceedings. The respondent is strongly encouraged, but not mandated, to do so. The parties must both file and serve form FM5 before the first hearing, setting out their respective positions on using NCDR, but again this procedural step does not oblige them to engage substantively with non-court dispute resolution. Although a judge, and the parties themselves, can direct themselves to NCDR once court proceedings have started, in practice that often is not effective. As the child focused model develops, this is an area where further change could help families find more durable solutions and child-centred outcomes.

Why early legal advice matters

Under the new system, the early stages of a case carry more weight than ever before. There are fewer hearings, and the court relies heavily on the information gathered in the first month or so. This process is unfamiliar to the layperson and the emotional strain that comes with a dispute over a child must not be underestimated.

Once a case is set on a particular path, it can be hard to change direction. Clear and well-considered case presentation from the outset therefore matters more than ever. Early judicial decisions are based on the content of the application and child impact report alone. Respondents may find that the court has made directions for evidence gathering and case progress before they have had any meaningful opportunity to engage with proceedings, raising understandable concerns about procedural fairness.

Early legal advice is critical. It is needed from the outset to ensure procedural fairness, identify and pursue NCDR where appropriate, engage the right third party/professional support, shape proportionate case management directions, and ensure that any complexities are properly identified and investigated.

Conclusion

The child focused model marks one of the most significant changes to private family law in many years. Its focus on reducing delay and centring children’s experiences is widely welcomed. As it becomes part of everyday practice across England and Wales, the challenge will be to ensure that decisions are not just faster, but also fair, supportive, and genuinely effective for the children whose lives are shaped by them.

As national rollout continues, a number of refinements could help strengthen confidence and outcomes, including:

• clearer triage between simple and complex cases;
• improved safeguards in abuse‑related proceedings;
• greater transparency about how professional opinions are formed;
• stronger links to NCDR and ongoing support; and
• structured review points where arrangements can be tested against children’s lived experiences.

Ultimately, the success of the child focused model will not be measured by how quickly cases leave the court system, but by whether the arrangements made genuinely work for children – long after proceedings have ended.