The welfare of children is at the heart of everything that family courts and we as family lawyers do.

As the most relevant legislation (the Children Act 1989) stresses, it is the paramount consideration.

However and despite the best efforts and intentions of everyone involved, it is an objective which has been somewhat frustrated in recent years because of the sheer volume of work that family courts are obliged to contend with.

During 2025, it took more than eight months on average for children cases to achieve resolution.

With that in mind, the Government made a significant undertaking in March of this year to expand an initiative designed to expedite matters.

It announced £17 million worth of funding to increase the availability – and ultimately provide for a nationwide roll-out – of ‘child-focused courts’ following a trial in 10 of the 43 court areas in England and Wales.

Introduced in 2022 as ‘Pathfinder’ courts, they aim to remove the risks posed to children’s welfare by delivering faster outcomes through better co-ordination between courts, relevant agencies or specialists, local authorities, parents and police.

They were championed by the recently retired former President of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir Andrew McFarlane, who explained that a pilot of the ‘problem-solving court’ programme had been “more radical, and far more successful, than even its most ardent supporters would have anticipated”.

The decision to support an expansion of the renamed system was taken because, as the Lord Chancellor David Lammy said, it would be even more able to “protect, support and hear the voices of children, helping family courts make safe and fair decisions without delay”.

The Ministry of Justice hopes that a national expansion of the child-focused courts will be complete by 2029.

Given Hall Brown Family Law’s direct experience of the child-focused court in Leeds, I thought that it was worth outlining what we have found in practice.

Whilst I should start by saying that I do see its merits, particularly in cases where there are no safeguarding issues, I do have some reservations as to whether it is equally as helpful in resolving matters with issues related to relocation, domestic abuse or safeguarding.

Here, the child-focused courts really do allow for a robust approach to be adopted.

Just as the name might suggest, the views of children are taken on board at a very early stage, allowing for a meaningful relationship with parents to be maintained by virtue of matters being progressed quickly.

There is another net benefit; namely, that the costs associated with such proceedings are lower than those advanced via the traditional court method due to there being fewer hearings.

I should point out, though, that child-focused courts are neither perfect nor able to come up with all the answers in isolation, especially in relation to cases which feature allegations of domestic abuse.

The emphasis on speed often means not being able to explore these problems in any great detail.

That, in itself, raises the potential for important aspects of what happens between parents and their children to be overlooked and not dealt with effectively.

My experience of the pilot scheme has been that, as a result, some practitioners now choose to front-load their applications, setting out allegations of domestic abuse and other safeguarding concerns on the application form itself.

Historically, a brief initial statement would often be provided, on the understanding that there would be a later opportunity to file a more substantive account.

That is no longer the case and there is a concern that without raising these issues early on in proceedings in detail, there might not be a subsequent chance to do so.

Given the streamlined process, significant weight is placed on the child impact reports prepared by and opinions of Cafcass, the agency which represents the views of children and young people within the family court.

Although Cafcass does a tremendous job, its involvement does not rule out the prospect of appeals and the kind of subsequent proceedings which can undermine the intended swift conclusion.

The child-focused court is a much-needed innovation but, when it comes to allegations of domestic abuse, I believe that it still needs to be just one part of a broader infrastructure.

It should be supported by initiatives like the Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Programmes (DAPPs) or equivalent, approved courses – to help those accused of abuse change their behaviour.

Furthermore, it is worth remembering that there are alternatives to going through child-focused courts which are broadly similar but more flexible in nature and allow the individuals involved more autonomy in how solutions are reached.

The voice of children is just as fundamental in solicitor-led negotiations or other non-court dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, the collaborative process and arbitration.

All these can involve direct engagement with the child through child-inclusive mediation, ensuring that their wishes and feelings are properly understood and, where appropriate, are reflected in the outcome.

Practitioners can also draw on the expertise of professionals such as independent social workers, who can meet with the child and provide valuable insight into their welfare and lived experience.

This helps parties shape an outcome which is not only informed by the child’s opinions but is also properly tailored to meet the needs of both children and their parents.

I must reiterate my opinion that child-focused courts are a definite advance on the traditional method for confronting the challenging issues which come before them.

Even so, they are certainly not the answer in every case.

It is my view that practitioners will increasingly embrace non-court dispute resolution methods, including child-inclusive mediation, to ascertain the voice of the child at an early stage.

This, in turn, enables matters to be resolved outside of the court process, allowing families to retain greater autonomy over the arrangements put in place. They are not, however, a complete solution.

 Rather – and perhaps unsurprisingly, given the varied nature of the matters which they are tasked with intervening in – they offer an important means of channelling more routine matters away from family courts, which will, hopefully, allow courts more time in the future to solve even more complex difficulties.