Overcoming the barriers: neurodiversity guidance from the Family Justice Council

In January 2025, the Family Justice Council published Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System for Practitioners.

In his foreword, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division and Chair of the Family Justice Council, acknowledged that failure to recognise and accommodate neurodivergence within the Family Justice System leads to parties, witnesses, and children not being able to participate fully, and that equal access to justice is fundamental to a functioning and fair system.

The universally applicable principle upon which the guidance sits, is that understanding an individual’s needs leads to better participation, and more effective justice.

As a neurodivergent person, and the mother of two neurodivergent children, I found the guidance validating, because it has been prepared with input from people like me (including the pioneering group, FLANC (Family Law Advice for the Neurodivergent Community).

It is refreshing that we have moved away from guidance being given by neurotypical experts, to learning from neurodivergent people and their families, about their lived experiences.

Why is it needed?

The guidance highlights that there is overrepresentation of neurodivergence in court users and that its prevalence is masked further by the fact that it is often under-diagnosed.

Whilst some neurodivergent people have mental health or physical conditions, separate from their neurodivergence, including intellectual disabilities, that is often not the case. There is now, thankfully, greater recognition that neurodivergent people’s brains work differently to those of the neuro-majority and are simply different – and not lesser.

One only has to look at the number of high-profile neurodivergent people out there eg actor Anthony Hopkins, who is autistic, Richard Branson, who is dyslexic, and Olympian Simone Biles, who has ADHD, to appreciate that neurodivergent people are individuals – like everyone – and have particular strengths as well as things they find difficult.

This is why the guidance is essential reading for all practitioners. At least 15% of the population are estimated to be neurodivergent, so any of our clients might be, meaning they could face barriers when it comes to participating in the family justice system.

Another misconception is that being neurodivergent is something people grow out of. Neurodivergent children become neurodivergent adults, and whilst many of us “mask” in adulthood, having developed strategies to cope, and make our neurodivergence less obvious in order to fit in, this is an exhausting practice, and must, in most cases, create additional layers of difficulty, on top of the usual stress of instructing a solicitor about a family law issue, and participating in court proceedings.

Imagine if, because of your ADHD, you take frequent movement breaks at work. Or if, because you are dyslexic, you use the “read aloud” function on your computer. Or if, because you are autistic, you work best when following an established routine. Then imagine that, because many neuro-divergent conditions co-occur, you actually do all of these things. Then you find yourself involved in Family Court proceedings, and you are required to sit through a long final hearing, read from a paper bundle, whilst answering questions in cross examination, and have no control over when there will be a break, or when the hearing will end.  Add to that the risk of getting flustered, or failing to make eye contact, and as a result, the judge concluding that you are not telling the truth in your evidence.

A high-masking person might appear able to navigate Family Court proceedings, but they will almost certainly not be getting a fair trial if they are unable to use their usual coping strategies.

Purpose

The focus of the guidance is on supporting neurodivergent people to overcome the barriers they face to fair participation in proceedings, by helping practitioners recognise neurodiversity and what those barriers are, suggesting adjustments, and explaining how to apply for them.

It is highlighted that many practitioners do not feel confident when it comes to supporting neuro-divergent clients, so clear and respectful summaries are provided of the most common neurodevelopmental conditions, including the strengths and challenges associated with them. There is also a helpful summary of inclusive terminology.

A valid point made is that someone can be neuro-divergent and not know about it, or they may suspect that they are, but not have a formal diagnosis. The guidance therefore suggests that practitioners consider asking their clients screening questions to try and identify potential neurodiversity at an early stage in every case. By focussing on their individual needs and challenges, rather than requiring a specific diagnosis or label, we as practitioners can support any client in accessing adjustments.

This might include seeking an expert assessment, if that is needed, or it might be as simple as a client expressing a preference to communicate by email rather than by phone, or to dimming the lights to help with sensory sensitivities.

Consider also a scenario where a client might show signs of being neuro-divergent but may not feel comfortable identifying that way. The screening questions help us as practitioners identify potential neurodiversity, so we can seek to accommodate it, without having to assign a label to the challenges an individual might face.

Most adjustments needed to accommodate neurodiversity are simple and inexpensive – for example, coloured overlay to help dyslexic people read text, or frequent short breaks for someone with ADHD to help them manage their energy – so practitioners should feel confident in requesting them in order to support their clients, even with court resources being as stretched as they are.

The guidance should also be considered in relation to NCDR and interviews with organisations like CAFCASS and local authorities.

The fact that we now have all the key information in one place, means we should be able to signpost judges and opponents to the guidance and case law, to ensure adjustments can be made.

I have no doubt that there are some practitioners out there who would roll their eyes if a high-masking client asked to, for example, wear noise reducing headphones to court, to cancel out background noise and help them focus, perhaps because they believe it would be viewed as an attempt to garner sympathy from the judge.

The increased awareness promoted by the guidance hopefully means we are moving away from this type of thinking as a profession. Specific guidance for the judiciary is also expected to follow later this year.

There is no reason for this sort of request to be viewed as someone trying to gain an advantage. It should be viewed as a request for equity, recognising that we do not all start from the same place, and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances.

A source of frustration for me is that the prevalence of neurodiversity is widely misunderstood, which is why I agree with the recommendation by FLANC that professionals in the family justice system should have an hour of compulsory neurodiversity training, like that being rolled out in the NHS.

It is not due to neurodiversity being trendy: neurodivergent people like me and my children have always been here.

It is also not because “we are all on the spectrum” as the autistic spectrum is not linear – it describes the different ways in which autistic people experience autistic traits.

Nor is it because “screens cause ADHD” as ADHD is widely considered to be genetic.

It is because neurodivergence is better understood, and identified, so neurodivergent people are able to understand themselves, and what they need to be able to live in a society that was not designed with them in mind, more than ever before. That is a wonderful thing, and I am pleased that this guidance shows that the family justice system is working towards keeping pace with this change in society.