Fidget tools as self-regulation supports for neurodivergent clients

Neurodivergent parents involved in family proceedings face a set of challenges that the legal profession has been slow to name and slower still to address. For those with diagnoses of autism, ADHD or sensory processing difficulties, the court environment presents a particular cluster of challenges: unfamiliar surroundings, unpredictable demands, prolonged periods of enforced stillness, and acute emotional weight. Together, these can create conditions of sensory overload in which meaningful participation becomes not merely difficult but, in some cases, impossible. A parent who cannot effectively concentrate, follow the thread of submissions, or communicate their position to their legal representative is not a disengaged or unco-operative litigant. They may simply be a person whose neurodevelopmental profile has been entirely unaccounted for by a system that was not designed with them in mind.

This matters profoundly. Family proceedings routinely determine questions of huge significance to a parent: whether they retain the care of their children, the nature and frequency of their contact, or the extent to which the state intervenes in their family. A parent who cannot participate effectively in those proceedings because the environment has overwhelmed their capacity to regulate is not receiving equal access to justice. The responsibility to remedy that falls, in the first instance, on us as their legal representatives. It is a responsibility I do not think our profession has yet taken seriously enough.

Understanding the neurodivergent parent in the court environment

ADHD, autism and sensory processing difficulties share, to varying degrees, a common feature: difficulty filtering unwanted sensory input. Without the neurological architecture that allows most people to tune out background noise, peripheral movement or the ambient discomfort of an unfamiliar room, individuals with these profiles must expend significant cognitive resource simply managing their environment resource that is then unavailable for the task of following proceedings and giving instructions. Under the additional pressure of the court context, that deficit is compounded.

It is important to resist the instinct to interpret the outward presentation of that overload through the wrong lens. A parent who appears distracted, who is unable to maintain eye contact, who seems to disengage from what is being said, may not be indifferent to the proceedings or difficult to work with. They may be doing everything within their neurological capacity simply to remain present. In a system where adverse inferences can be drawn from behaviour and where a parent’s engagement with the process is itself scrutinised, misreading these presentations carries serious consequences.

The evidence for fidget tools

The research evidence specifically relating to fidget tools remains limited and is not without complexity. However, it sits within a broader and more established evidence base on sensory-based self-regulation strategies. Fidget tools – whether a tangle puzzle, theraputty, a pop-it, a chair band, or a fidget cube – keep the hands occupied in a way that provides low-level perceptual input. That input can serve as a regulatory anchor: reducing the intrusion of competing stimuli, providing an outlet for excess physical energy, and freeing cognitive attention for the primary task. Studies suggest that this kind of sensory engagement can support focus, reduce anxiety, and improve capacity to remain present and functional under stress.

Crucially, the mechanism is not passive. Keeping the hands engaged appears to prompt the brain to increase attention on the task at hand, supporting alertness, memory and the suppression of distracting stimuli. For a neurodivergent parent in a courtroom or a conference room, these are not marginal gains. They represent the difference between a client who can follow what is happening, absorb advice and give meaningful instructions, and one who cannot.

Building a practice that anticipates need

In my experience, the most effective approach is to introduce these tools early — ideally at the very first meeting. The process of finding what works for a particular client should be treated not as an add-on, but as part of the broader work of understanding their profile and building a working relationship. There is no single tool that suits everyone. Some clients find the tactile repetition of theraputty calming; others find the quiet, continuous motion of a tangle puzzle more helpful. Some find the clicking of certain tools irritating rather than regulating. The only way to know is to explore — without pressure and without making it a formal exercise.

Keeping a selection of tools in your bag means that this exploration can begin immediately and can be revisited across multiple settings. A client who has experimented with different options during a conference in your office is not encountering something strange and unfamiliar when they reach an expert assessment or a court hearing. The tool is simply part of how they manage: normalised, expected and available. This matters because a support introduced for the first time at a moment of acute stress is far less likely to be effective than one that has already been integrated into the client’s experience of the legal process. The normalisation of the approach is not incidental to its effectiveness. It is central to it.

Anticipating need in this way also carries an important practical benefit: it removes the burden from the client. A neurodivergent parent, already navigating the complexity and emotional weight of proceedings, should not also be required to identify, articulate and advocate for every adjustment they need. Where we can do that work, by having the right tool available in the assessment room before the appointment begins, by ensuring it is present in the waiting area outside the courtroom, by raising with the judge in advance that a client will be self-regulating during the hearing, we reduce the cognitive and emotional load on a person who may already be at or near capacity.

Co-regulation and the lawyer’s role

The evidence on neurodivergent conditions and emotional regulation consistently highlights the importance of co-regulation — the role that an attuned, trusted adult plays in supporting a person to manage their physiological and emotional state, particularly under conditions of high stress. As a solicitor, I am well placed to play that role. I am familiar to the client. I have a relationship with them. I am present across the process in a way that other professionals may not be.

This means that my role in supporting a neurodivergent parent is not limited to handing them a fidget tool at the start of a hearing. It extends to checking in before we enter the courtroom, watching for early signs that a client is approaching overwhelm during proceedings, prompting them to engage with the tool when I can see they are becoming dysregulated and, where necessary, asking the court for a short break before the threshold is crossed. None of this is beyond our professional role. All of it is part of what it means to represent a client effectively and with genuine regard for their access to justice.

Fidget tools as reasonable adjustments — and the case for systemic change

It is worth being clear about the legal framing. Fidget tools are a legitimate and proportionate reasonable adjustment, one that imposes no meaningful burden on the court, on other parties, or on the integrity of the process, and that can make a significant difference to a neurodivergent parent’s ability to participate. Identifying and advocating for reasonable adjustments is not optional. It is a professional obligation. A client who cannot effectively engage with proceedings because their sensory needs have gone unaddressed has not been properly represented, however technically accomplished the advocacy conducted on their behalf.

But individual practitioners can only do so much. The family justice system needs to move towards a position in which sensory supports for neurodivergent adults are normalised, not treated as unusual requests that must be justified afresh at each hearing. Judges who understand that a parent handling a fidget cube during submissions is self-regulating, not being disrespectful; court staff who are familiar with these tools and do not treat their presence as anomalous; CAFCASS officers who factor sensory needs into how they structure their meetings — all of these contribute to an environment in which neurodivergent parents can genuinely participate.

A tangle puzzle or a piece of putty is a small thing to carry. For the parent sitting across from you who is doing everything they can simply to remain present, it may be one of the most useful things you bring.

Jane Wilson is a solicitor with both personal and professional experience supporting individuals with autism and other neurodivergent conditions. She is a member of the Advisory Committee for Family Law Advice for the Neurodivergent Community (FLANC) and holds a Level 2 qualification in Understanding Autism.

[email protected]