The report on improving family court services for children is an unsurprisingly depressing read for family law practitioners

The headlines (as at December 2024) 

There were 4,000 children involved in public and private law cases that had been ongoing for more than 100 weeks. The average duration of a public case was 36 weeks and for private cases it was 41 weeks. There was 52 weeks difference on average in regard to the duration of private cases between Wales (18 weeks) and London (70 weeks).

Why does it matter

As the report acknowledges: ‘Some of the most vulnerable people in society are subject to family court proceedings. Delays in resolving cases can create additional stress for families, increase the risk of harm to children and increase costs.’ The consequences (including financial costs) for those families and society are short, medium and long term. 

The delays in the system, dealing with litigants in person and geographical disparities are part of daily working life for me and my colleagues, and must be taken into account when we give advice to our clients.

Non-court dispute resolution

Can court be avoided altogether? Mediate, and/or (if there are no live safeguarding issues) arbitrate. The latter option can deliver a speedy cost-effective binding decision on matters, such as choice of school, relocation (internal and to Hague Convention jurisdictions) and child arrangements. 

Birketts’ opinion: The government should extend the voucher scheme to contribute to arbitration, which would lead to speedier outcomes and would also relieve the burden on the courts. Arbitrators could also be tasked with sitting on lists from the overburdened courts, similar to the approach taken to reduce NHS waiting lists by using private clinics.

Unintended consequences

The combination of the Practice Direction 12J protocol, Cafcass best practice on domestic abuse (in short, no time spent with the other parent pending an investigation about the alleged abuse) and the delays being experienced by the family courts can lead to a new status quo being established for children that will guide the trajectory and potentially the outcome of a case. Birketts’ opinion: some parties may utilise this cynically and not in the best interests of children, deliberately using delays to engineer their preferred outcomes.

Domestic abuse

The domino effect of the delays is impacting on the ability of the family court to deal with applications for injunctive relief under the Family Law Act 1996. Whilst the government policy is to ‘stop violence against women and girls,’ these urgent or without notice applications are subject to a postcode lottery in being dealt with. 

Birketts’ opinion: in Central London the situation is currently critical and dangerous. An application for an occupation order made at the end of January at the Central Family Court was first listed for the end of May 2025; then, after a further incident, the listing was brought forward to the end of March 2025. At this hearing the judge could not dispose of the matter, encouraging voluntary zonal undertakings, and directed that a listing be made expeditiously. The listing was made for the end of November 2025. Special measures need to be put in place for injunctive relief cases in Central London.

The future

The report identifies that there is no one public body responsible for the delivery of family justice, and that work between the multiple bodies is fragmented and lacks consistent leadership and strategic direction. Recommendations are made for a comprehensive strategy with measurable goals, the collection of data and evidence, improved support for litigants in person and that there should be more sharing of what is working across the regions. 

Birketts’ view: The cuts to public funding that led to many litigants representing themselves have greatly contributed to the delays, as it is clear that cases take longer to be heard and that it is difficult for litigants who are not getting objective advice. Like many of our peers Birketts’ family team members do pro bono work. It is not enough. Urgent priority needs to be given to adopting the recommendations made in the report, and dipping into the public purse. In order to improve the current situation, it is imperative that the government better understand and gather the data it needs to understand the causes of the delays across the whole system and country, and the impact on individuals.

The report does not address the impact on practitioners, professionals and the judiciary who work in the family justice system, who are subject to spiralling rates of burn-out. It does, however, identify that there is increased work and evidence required per case (not assisted by inefficient administrative actions, with around 32% of cases having at least one hearing cancelled that had to be re-arranged). In the longer term, this may mean that it will become more difficult to run the family justice system and that is also why this is an urgent and serious issue that needs to be tackled.