It is well known to professionals who work within the children law sphere, that the family court justice system is under substantial pressure. In 2024, it was reported by the National Audit Office that there were 15,980 new public law cases and 51,473 new private law cases issued in the court system. The mean durations of such cases were 36 weeks for public law and 41 weeks for private law, considerably higher that the 2018 statistic of 27 and 26 weeks respectively. Delay in family cases fundamentally impacts the welfare and needs of children. As highlighted by the National Audit Office “delays can mean children must wait longer for permanent care and living or contact arrangements and may have the disruption of multiple short-term placements. Children may also experience anxiety, a lack of stability and disrupted friendships and education. If a case takes longer, it is more likely that the family’s situation changes, requiring updated evidence or assessments, which creates further delays”. Delay often opposes the central legal concept that any decision must be made with the welfare of the child as the courts paramount consideration.

In September 2025, a report was published from the Public Accounts Committee.  The report commented that “current arrangements for family justice are complex. Many organisations are involved but none is accountable for overall performance”. In compiling the report, the Committee took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Department for Education (DfE), HM Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). In addition, the Committee received a number of written submissions from a range of stakeholders including individuals, legal representative bodies, voluntary sector organisations, academics and researchers. Issues raised by those involved included: –

1. Concerns over backlogs and delays in the family courts and the impact on children and families including in particular those involved with domestic abuse cases.
2. Gaps in family justice data including people’s experiences of the family court system, the outcomes for children and on protected characteristics, and a lack of a joined-up approach on the collection and analysis of this data.
3. Concerns over the family court process and comments on its complexity, including navigating such process as a litigant in person and meeting the needs of domestic abuse victims.
4. A lack of support, both legal and financial support, for litigants in person and concerns that some staff in the system are poorly resourced or trained to support domestic abuse victims.
5. Insufficient capacity to meet demands including shortages in Judges, social workers and court staff, which added to the delays in the system.
6. Support for a “whole system” approach to family justice including “Pathfinder” as a way forward for private law matters.

The Committee concluded that children and their families are being let down by the family justice system, due to cases taking far longer than expected, with inefficiencies in systems and processes. The report noted that there is a clear shortage in the number of District Judges and social workers, which further contributed to the delays and pressures within the family justice system. In making their conclusions, the Committee made six key recommendations namely:

1. The MoJ and DfE, should, over the next three months, working with partners as necessary, set out how they plan to improve family justice timeliness overall, including: clear objectives; measurable milestones; and a realistic timetable for achieving them.

2. The MoJ and DfE should assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current accountability arrangements for family justice, and report back by December 2025 on how this might be improved, including on:
   1. how accountability can be strengthened across the system by consolidating current responsibilities or increasing transparent reporting; and
   2. how both departments can better support the Family Justice Board nationally, and Local Family Justice Boards locally, to improve performance.

3. The MoJ and DfE should take steps to improve efficiency in family justice systems and processes by:
   1. making a system-wide assessment of where process inefficiencies impact on performance;
   2. putting in place arrangements to learn from and embed good practice;

• supporting families, in particular, litigants in person, to better navigate the system;

1. promoting alternative resolutions where possible; and
2. clarifying how the additional £2 billion of new investment in children’s social care will be spent, for example, in improving family support to help families stay together and avoid the court system.

4. In its Treasury Minute response the MoJ, together with DfE, HMCTS and Cafcass, should clarify to the Committee:
   1. the capacity required for family courts to meet current demand on a timely basis; and
   2. how, and by when, family justice partners will resolve the workforce shortages in district judges and social workers, including details for locations where shortages are most acute.

5. The MoJ and DfE, working with HMCTS, Cafcass and Local Authorities, in consultation with the Judiciary, should set out a joined-up data and evidence strategy over the next six months. This strategy should outline how the department will collect better data on:
   1. the most important causes of delays and inefficiencies;
   2. the tracking a child’s progress through the system from end to end;

• the differential outcomes for user groups; and

1. the ‘whole system’ costs of family justice.

6. The MoJ should, in conjunction with the DfE, within the next 12 months publish a plan and timeline for the wider roll out of pathfinder, including an assessment of how the model will affect spending and how it intends to reallocate funding to Cafcass and local authorities as necessary.

An update is due at the end of the year, with the suggested timeline to be produced in the next 12 months. The proposed recommendations were welcomed by the Bar, with the Chair of the Bar Council, Barbara Mills KC stating “we are pleased to see a comprehensive set of recommendations to combat the myriad of issues plaguing the system, and ensure timely, effective, sustainable child-centred justice”.

It is hoped that the proposed measures will bring efficiency to an under-pressure system. However, the implementation of such changes will require both time and money. Practitioners will need to be alive to the alternative options to the court system, where possible, in order to try to limit the delay and resolve matters. The continuing importance and obligation of parties to consider Non-Court Dispute Resolution, along with the rise of Children Arbitration are important tools in ensuring swift justice in the best interests of children.

 Katherine Henry, Barrister, Henry Chambers