Practice Reflection
On 17 March, the government announced that Child Focused Courts will be rolled out across the whole of England and Wales, backed by £17 million in funding for 2026-27. For anyone who has spent time working in the family justice system, this is significant news. I have been watching the Pathfinder Court pilots since they began in 2022, and I welcome this expansion. Not because the model is perfect, and not without questions about how it will be resourced, but because the core principle is right: the family court should be organised around the child, not around the dispute between the adults.
The Child Focused Court model, formerly known as Pathfinder Courts, replaces the traditional adversarial approach in private law family proceedings with something more investigative and problem-solving. Instead of parents arriving at a first hearing with minimal information available to the judge, the model front-loads evidence gathering. A Child Impact Report is produced by Cafcass before the first hearing, giving the court an early picture of how the family dispute is affecting the child. The aim is fewer hearings, faster resolution, and better outcomes for children caught in the middle.
The model has been piloted since February 2022 and currently operates in ten of the forty-three court areas in England and Wales, including all of Wales, Birmingham, the West Midlands, Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and West Yorkshire. The pilot results have been striking. In those areas, court backlogs halved and cases were resolved up to seven and a half months faster. The next eight areas to adopt the model include Northumbria and North Durham, Cleveland and South Durham, Lancashire, Cumbria, and several others, with the remaining areas following in subsequent financial years.
The centrepiece of the model is the Child Impact Report. Under the previous child arrangements programme, roughly 30 per cent of children were seen by a Cafcass family court adviser before the first hearing. Under the Child Focused Court model, that figure rises to around 80 per cent. That is a fundamental shift. It means that in the vast majority of private law cases, someone will have spoken directly to the child, or at least assessed the child's circumstances in detail, before the court makes its first substantive decisions.
From my own practice, I know how much difference early information makes. I have been instructed in cases where the court was many months into proceedings before anyone sat down with the child and asked how things were going. By that point, positions have hardened, allegations have multiplied, and the child has been living in uncertainty for far too long. The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, described the Child Impact Report as a "game changer," and I understand why. Anything that brings the child's experience to the front of the process, rather than treating it as something to be explored later, is a step in the right direction.
For parents going through private law proceedings, the model should mean a less drawn-out, less adversarial experience. The traditional approach can involve multiple directions hearings, fact-finding hearings, and lengthy waits between each one. That takes an enormous emotional and financial toll. Families spend months, sometimes years, cycling through a process that often feels as though it is happening to them rather than for them. Children experience that duration as a period of instability and uncertainty, regardless of what the eventual outcome is.
The multi-agency approach matters too. Courts developing proper working relationships with domestic abuse services, police, and Independent Domestic Violence Advisers means that risks should be identified more quickly and more reliably. In too many cases I have seen, domestic abuse disclosures have been made at one hearing and not properly followed up until several hearings later. A system that takes those disclosures seriously from the start, and has the local partnerships in place to act on them, protects children and victims more effectively. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, was right to describe this as putting children first in a way that also makes victims feel more supported.
Alongside the court expansion, the government's Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement from section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. This deserves attention. The presumption was introduced in 2014 and required courts to assume that the involvement of both parents in a child's life would further the child's welfare, unless evidence suggested otherwise.
In principle, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it has caused real problems. The presumption created a starting point that was difficult to displace, even in cases involving serious domestic abuse. It framed contact as something to be preserved rather than something to be assessed on its merits. Removing it does not mean that courts will stop promoting meaningful relationships between children and both parents where it is safe to do so. It means that the starting point will be an open inquiry into what is actually in the child's best interests, without a legislative thumb on the scale.
As someone who writes assessments for the Family Court, I have seen first-hand how the presumption has complicated cases where a child's safety should have been the paramount consideration from the outset. Its repeal brings the law back into alignment with the welfare principle that is supposed to underpin everything the court does. The Bill will also remove parental responsibility from individuals convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, and where a child is born of rape. These are changes that should have come sooner, but they are welcome now.
For social workers and independent practitioners like me, the expansion of Child Focused Courts will change the landscape of private law work. The earlier emphasis on information gathering will shift the timing of assessments. Where currently an independent social worker might be instructed months into proceedings after several hearings have already taken place, the model's front-loaded approach should mean that the key questions are framed earlier and more precisely. That is broadly positive. A court that knows what it is dealing with from the outset is better placed to identify what additional assessment is needed and to ask the right questions. It should mean fewer speculative assessments and more focused, purposeful instructions.
There are, however, legitimate questions about resourcing. Cafcass estimated last year that it would need around 200 additional social workers to manage a national rollout. The £17 million investment includes a permanent increase in social work capacity for Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru, and will also fund Independent Domestic Violence Advisers to work on cases. Whether that is sufficient remains to be seen. A model that depends on detailed early assessment work only functions if there are enough qualified practitioners to do it. If the expansion outpaces recruitment, there is a risk that the Child Impact Reports become a bottleneck rather than a solution, and that the quality of early assessments suffers under volume pressure.
The next wave of expansion includes Northumbria and North Durham, which is my own patch. I will be watching closely to see how the model beds in locally, how it interacts with the work that independent social workers are already doing in this area, and whether the promised resources materialise. The North East has some of the most significant rural geography in the country and some of the longest historical delays in family court proceedings. If the model works here, it will work anywhere.
The family court has needed reform for a long time. The backlogs, the delays, the adversarial dynamics that too often make things worse for children rather than better. None of that is new, and none of it has been easy to fix. The Child Focused Court model is not a magic solution, but the pilot results are encouraging: faster resolution, fewer hearings, earlier attention to the child's lived experience, and a proper framework for identifying and responding to domestic abuse. Those are things worth expanding.
I welcome this announcement, and I hope the investment follows through. The children and families going through the system deserve a process that is built around their needs. That is what this model is trying to achieve, and on the evidence so far, it is working.
If you want to understand the statutory framework that underpins all family court decisions, including the welfare checklist that the Child Focused Court model is designed to serve more effectively, my guide on what to expect from an independent social work assessment covers the process from instruction to final report. For a practitioner's perspective on how courts use expert evidence, see my article on what the court actually wants from expert evidence.
Last reviewed: March 2026
Child Focused Courts, formerly known as Pathfinder Courts, are a new model for handling private law family proceedings in England and Wales. They replace the traditional adversarial approach with a more investigative, problem-solving process. The model centres on a Child Impact Report produced before the first hearing, which gives the court early insight into how a family dispute is affecting the child. The aim is fewer hearings, faster resolution, and decisions that are grounded in the child's lived experience from the outset.
The Child Impact Report is produced by Cafcass, Cafcass Cymru, or the local authority before the first hearing in a private law case. It provides the court with an early understanding of how the family dispute is affecting the child, drawing on direct engagement with the child wherever possible. Under the previous model, around 30 per cent of children were seen by a Cafcass family court adviser. Under the Child Focused Court model, that figure rises to approximately 80 per cent.
The model front-loads information gathering so the court has a clearer picture before the first substantive hearing. This should mean fewer hearings overall, faster resolution, and earlier identification of risks including domestic abuse. Pilot results showed backlogs halving and cases resolving up to seven and a half months faster. The model also promotes a multi-agency approach, with courts working alongside domestic abuse services, police, and Independent Domestic Violence Advisers.