Putting children first: rethinking the family lawyer’s role in separation

24 Mar 2026Opinion

The Family Solutions Group sets out proposals to embed child-focused practice in family law following recent procedural reforms

Child welfare and the voice of the child need to be front of mind for family law professionals advising on family separation, according to a report by Family Solutions Group (FSG), a multi-disciplinary group of family professionals with expertise in working with separated families in and out of court.

With the implementation of No-Fault Divorce in 2022 and, since 2024, the expectation that Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR) should be explored in all cases of family separation with limited exceptions, the report contends that family lawyers have a responsibility to take a less adversarial approach. And this isn’t just an empty call from the authors; it is widely endorsed within the family law community.

The statistics are striking. Approximately 1 in 4 children under the age of 16 in England and Wales are now living in families with separated parents. Sadly, many children in separating families experience lasting damage due to the parental conflict which so often arises in family separation. This manifests itself in psychological trauma but can also impact on future social and economic outcomes too.

The FSG report starts from the premise that something must be done about this and puts together a series of proposals for how family lawyers can adapt their approach as well as how the wider system can be redesigned to better support separating parents.

The fact that outgoing President of the Family Division Andrew McFarlane and the FSG’s creator, Lord Justice Cobb, have endorsed the report’s key recommendations confirms that they are to be taken seriously by family law practitioners.

In the survey of almost 550 family professionals working with separated families and parents the main findings were:

92% of respondents agree or strongly agree that family law professionals have a particular responsibility to the children of the family, not only the parent clients with whom they have a contractual relationship.
94% agree that family law professionals should have a responsibility to mitigate conflict between separating parents.
Over 85% of professionals agree that the voice of the child should be considered as standard practice
91% of respondents were in favour of mandating training in areas such as reducing the harmful effects on children of parental conflict, hearing the voice of the child, the benefits of Parenting Programmes, and in interdisciplinary working.
79% were in favour of the statement that family law professionals should have reflective supervision by an external trained specialist.

There is clearly a widespread view in the profession that responsibilities and practice need to change.

As a first step, family lawyers are encouraged to heed the call from The Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, to send separating parents a new letter she has developed which underlines the importance of putting children’s welfare first during the process of separation.

Next we recommend that senior family lawyers need to think afresh about the training they offer those in their teams. Training is key in developing a profession of child-focused family law professionals, who of course need to work within the law and for their paying clients, but who are also in a position of influence to help to shape a kinder, gentler, and more humane approach to family separation, putting children at the centre.

Family law teams should consider reviewing their training provision against the best practice suggestions set out in the report. For example, family professionals should be familiar with the model of child inclusive practice to understand how children’s voices can be heard more consistently in cases.

The report also highlights the value of reflective supervision or practice, enabling practitioners to learn lessons from their cases and those of their colleagues, and to apply these learnings in future cases. This would align family law practice more closely with other professionals supporting separated families, including those in the therapeutic sphere.

The report also identifies a case for requiring family professionals to demonstrate ongoing training in essential non-legal skills every 3 years as part of their continuing professional obligations, as mediators currently need to do.

There are many ways that family law professionals can evolve their approach and their thinking to help clients navigate a problem-solving pathway which a move away from an adversarial system requires. We owe it to the next generation of children to make the necessary changes. Putting children first requires a new mindset, a broader perspective and a shake-up to improve family law practice and ensure that we put children first in our day to day work.

Of course, we are not the only profession involved in this world with the power to make a difference but the legal community has a vital role to play in helping families separate well.

The authors are members of the Family Solutions Group.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

Sir Robert Buckland leads Amess review

Sir Robert Buckland KC is appointed to lead a review into the circumstances surrounding Sir David Amess's murder

Supreme Court tightens the reins on opt-out collective proceedings in Evans

The Supreme Court’s decision in Evans v Barclays recalibrates the balance between access to justice and procedural fairness, reinforcing the CAT’s discretion to refuse opt-out certification where claims are weak and opt-in proceedings remain viable

ACL Netherlands v Sandelson: currency risk, interest and the Autonomy fraud aftermath

Currency fluctuations, settlement credits and pre-judgement interest following the landmark HP–Autonomy fraud litigation.

Crane Bank v DFCU Bank: High Court refuses late amendments to defence based on PwC reports

Court holds disputed amendments neither consequential nor adequately particularised, with trial prejudice decisive.

Hammond v Herrington Carmichael: when interim invoices become statute bills

Costs Judge Whalan rules on whether 29 solicitor invoices constituted interim statute bills — with significant consequences for assessment rights.

Justice Investments v Visalia Energia: security for costs, strike-out, and the limits of open justice

Security for costs ordered against an apparently impecunious claimant company where evidence of beneficial ownership and control was opaque and incomplete.

Dhillon v Orchard: Court of Appeal rules section 26 FSMA rights cannot bind successors in title

Rights of recovery under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 do not extend to third-party purchasers of property.

Ranpariya v Government of India: High Court grants partial permission in complex extradition appeal

Extradition appeal raises significant questions on particularisation, torture risk, and the reliability of Indian diplomatic assurances.

KD v Home Secretary: Court of Appeal overturns asylum ruling for convicted murderer

A Turkish national who killed his wife cannot rely on the Refugee Convention due to danger to the community.

Tooley v Times Media: court refuses injunction and Norwich Pharmacal order in privacy and defamation dispute

The High Court declines interim relief and source disclosure in a case involving a private video.

Tooley v Associated Newspapers: limitation, relief from sanctions and the protection of journalistic sources

A claimant pursuing defamation claims against two national publishers secures a partial reprieve — but loses her primary action on limitation grounds.

Digital Property law risks overreach after 2025 Act

Recent case law on virtual assets reveals growing confusion over rivalrousness and risks stretching property law beyond coherence

British Airways faces scrutiny over climate claims

The UK's climate action group Possible has prompted an investigation into British Airways' misleading carbon emissions statements regarding its sustainability efforts

Gardner Aerospace v Upton: director found in breach after lobbying against his own company's transaction

A CFO-turned-interim CEO covertly undermined a £35m refinancing deal to engineer his own re-employment.

SJ Interview: Keith Froud

Keith Froud, Global Co-CEO and International Chief Executive of Eversheds Sutherland, has spent over three decades in corporate M&A before moving into global leadership. In this interview, he reflects on deal strategy, decision-making in complex organisations, the evolution of the international legal market, and the impact of technological change on the profession

Power Shifts, Responsibility Holds

From AI liability and freezing injunctions to private equity governance and regulatory reform, this issue traces a legal system adapting to new pressures while keeping accountability firmly human.