As all Resolution members know, delay is harmful to children. So the national rollout of the Child Focused Courts, formerly known as the Pathfinder courts, represents a significant and welcome shift for us all in how private law children cases are approached in England and Wales.
While there is not a lot of evidence thus far, information from the first pilot areas suggests that the model delivers outcomes more quickly, with fewer hearings and better early information for judges. Cases were concluded months sooner, sparing children prolonged uncertainty and exposure to parental conflict. On the face of it then, this is a model we must support.
At the same time, family law professionals should be wise in looking at what the cost is to that speed; whether there were truly successful outcomes (or whether families returned to court), what resources are required to sustain it (or implement it in the remaining court areas), and how the model interacts with non‑court dispute resolution (NCDR).
Traditionally, delay has always been a problem in private law. In recent years children have had to wait many months – sometimes years – for final decisions about where they live and how they spend time with each parent. Conflict then becomes entrenched rather than resolved – the court deals with the ‘nuts and bolts’ but has never been able to tackle the underlying issues of trauma, domestic abuse, repeating family patterns or poor communication.
The Child Focused Court model is intended to respond to this by front‑loading information, particularly through the Child Impact Report, enabling the court to understand the child’s lived experience at a much earlier stage. Judges involved in the pilots have spoken positively about the ability to make safer, more proportionate decisions without the need for repeated hearings.
However, faster decision making does not happen in a vacuum. The success of the pilot schemes relied heavily on additional capacity, particularly from Cafcass, local authorities and specialist domestic abuse services. The model is more investigative and more collaborative, and that inevitably requires time, skilled professionals and funding.
As the Child Focused Courts expand nationally, there is a legitimate concern about whether existing services – already under considerable strain – can absorb increased demand while maintaining the quality that made the pilots successful. If resources do not keep pace with ambition, there is a risk that speed could be prioritised over depth, or that outcomes vary significantly depending on geography.
Swifter outcomes are important, but they must also be robust and sustainable.
Any discussion of private law reform must acknowledge the ongoing impact of limited access to legal aid. Research shows that up to 80% of parents now enter proceedings without legal representation, often navigating complex processes at times of significant emotional stress.
While the Child Focused Court model is designed to be less adversarial and more problem‑solving, it cannot fully compensate for the absence of early legal advice. Without it, parents may struggle to understand their options, engage confidently with NCDR, or make informed decisions that support long‑term arrangements for their children. If the goal is better, earlier resolution, legal aid remains a critical part of the picture.
Where does this leave NCDR?
The Child Focused Courts explicitly recognise the importance of resolving appropriate cases outside the courtroom. This aligns closely with the principles that underpin mediation, collaborative practice, arbitration and other forms of NCDR. And of course Part 3 of the FPR.
Yet there is an inherent tension. Where the court remains actively involved from the outset, families may feel that court is the default pathway, even where their dispute could be resolved more effectively elsewhere. The presence of the court can sometimes reduce urgency to engage fully with NCDR, particularly if parents perceive that the judge will ultimately “sort it out”. Why leave court and then wait for your mediation?
Anecdotally, there are reports that cases are being closed early if families choose to try NCDR, that judges are not keen on adjourning them. This is a failure to understand how skilled our NCDR colleagues are at unpicking issues that are not ‘legal’ at all.
For NCDR to flourish alongside the new model, it must be understood by everyone that it is not an add‑on, but a central route to a successful outcome, supported by clear judicial confidence and early signposting.
Perhaps the greatest opportunity presented by the Child Focused Courts lies in early information gathering. By identifying safeguarding issues, domestic abuse risks and complexity at the beginning, the court is better placed to distinguish between cases that genuinely require judicial determination and those that do not, and could be better served by NCDR.
Where it is safe and appropriate, judges must then be confident enough to step back, allowing families to resolve matters through NCDR with the right professional support. This is not about diminishing the role of the court, but about using it proportionately and in a way that properly serves children’s welfare.
The long‑term success of the Child Focused Court will depend on investment in resources, meaningful access to early legal advice and support, and a clear, integrated role for NCDR.
There is a ‘need for speed’, but not at any cost.
Mediator, Collaborative Solicitor and Arbitrator
Family Solutions
