Radical reform of the family courts: one form

Baroness Hale was interviewed by the BBC for the ‘Radical’ podcast in an interview that went out on 3 July 2025. She reiterated her idea (also put forward in her book Spider Woman) that when people divorce, they should be able to fill in ‘one form’ to deal with divorce, finances, children and any Family Law Act (FLA) applications relating to protection from domestic abuse. 

The current system

This is in contrast to the present system, according to which a person could concurrently be involved in four sets of proceedings. In addition, they could also be involved in concurrent criminal law proceedings relating to domestic abuse allegations, and disagreements about child maintenance payments administered by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). 

Historically these matters have been conducted in silos, with practitioners often specialising in ‘money’ or ‘children’. These are conducted on separate government portals, or no portal at all, as yet, in most regard to areas for children and FLA proceedings. Court applications each attract a fee (except for FLA proceedings, which do not as a matter of public policy).

Practitioners are encouraged (including through Resolution protocols) to keep money and children separate in negotiations and correspondence for fear that they will otherwise be seen to be placing pressure on the weaker party (often the primary carer) to agree that the children should spend more time with the financially stronger party. The resident parent often does not wish to increase overnight stays knowing that this will reduce child maintenance payments.

Documents from one set of proceedings cannot automatically be disclosed into the other without the permission of the court. A parent may say that they are capable of caring for a child full-time, whilst saying something very different about their work in the financial proceedings.

Allegations of domestic abuse may be tried in the family court with the standard of proof being on a balance of probabilities, whilst the same allegations may be tried in the criminal court to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. In children proceedings, there is a specific protocol Practice Direction 12J for when there are allegations of domestic abuse, whereas this is not the case in financial proceedings, where domestic abuse is rarely interpreted as amounting to ‘conduct’ (within the meaning of Section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973). For a lay person, this all makes no sense at all.

In regard to children, the court relies on the welfare checklist and what is in a child’s best interests to make decisions about living arrangements. In regard to money, the Section 25 factors, which give wide ranging discretion to the court (with a nod to what is in the child’s best interests in the pre-amble to Section 25 where the court is told to give first consideration to the welfare of any child under 18, this often being translated into ensuring that the children and primary carer have a roof over their heads) are the reference point for such decisions.

The proposal 

The current separation of these issues is often baffling to clients and the public. Even more so during a time when many don’t have access to legal advice (recognised in the ‘Radical’ interview), because of the cuts that have led to many litigants in person representing themselves in the family courts.

There is also much sense to hearing both cases together and there is often a real interplay between the issues, such as internal relocation cases, where the affordability of living in a particular location is a factor.

So, does Baroness Hale’s idea have merit? Birketts’ view – yes, it does. Money and children may already be heard together when cases are arbitrated. One arbitrator can hear the case related to money and children one day after each other. However, unfortunately, this is not a possibility in all cases because of the ambit of arbitration schemes where (1) there are safeguarding issues in respect of the Children Act matter and (2) there are allegations of non-disclosure in regard to the finance matter, or (3) the parties simply do not have the money for private litigation. 

Baroness Hale acknowledges that putting this idea into practice would mean that cases would need careful triage at the outset. Some cases could then be dealt with on another track, with non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) being encouraged. Other more complex cases could be looked at during this phase. 

In any event, it is high time for a wide-ranging review of the family justice system to be conducted, considering (among other matters) the financial and human costs of the current outdated adversarial system. The objective: establish a modern family court fit for purpose. If all matters were heard together then patterns of coercive control and abuse might be easier to spot. Baroness Hale’s one form idea is worth considering seriously.