Every year, family courts across England and Wales handle a significant volume of work.

Figures published by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) show that there were close to 260,000 new cases last year alone (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2024/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2024).

All of those matters, of course, need dealing with efficiently and sensitively. Yet the aim and actuality have been very different despite the best efforts of those working within the family justice system.

That was clear from a report published five years ago this month which examined how, for instance, family courts deal with allegations of domestic and child sexual abuse.

The document was titled ‘Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases’ but has become known more succinctly as ‘the Harm Panel Report’ (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef3dcade90e075c4e144bfd/assessing-risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf).

It described how evidence from more than 1,200 individuals and organisations had highlighted “a range of concerns” about how such issues were treated in private law children proceedings.

In addition to limited resources, there was a lack of co-ordination between different agencies, along with the tensions created by the adversarial way of trying to determine what had happened.

The net effect was that those subjected to abuse often found themselves experiencing the trauma of having to repeat what they had been through at each successive stage of proceedings.

The report called for widespread reform of the family court system, underlining that the “paramount consideration” in all such discussions should be the welfare of any children involved.

What emerged was something known as ‘Pathfinder’, an initiative to improve how information in individual cases is shared and acted on by the courts, CAFCASS (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which works to protect children’s welfare and interests in proceedings), local authorities and the police.

The intention was to ensure that decision-making was more effective, there were fewer hearings and cases could be resolved more speedily.

Pathfinder works in two ways, the first of which is developing a better understanding of the facts of each case that are condensed into a Child Impact Report.

Should there be issues of abuse, specialist bodies will then intervene and provide whatever support is appropriate.

In the second part of the process, family courts review the Child Impact Report and decide what the next steps should be.

The first practical use of Pathfinder was in Dorset and North Wales on a pilot basis in February 2022.

It has been so successful, that it has reduced the time needed to finalise cases by many months.

That is important because whilst abuse can prove difficult enough to confront in the courts, delays in resolving such matters only serve to exacerbate the pressure on adults and children alike.

As MoJ data makes clear, delays are – sadly – especially likely in proceedings involving people who either choose to or have to represent themselves instead of counting on experienced family lawyers.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, is a keen advocate of the merits of Pathfinder.

Last July, he declared that it “has turned out to be more radical, and far more successful, than even its most ardent supporters would have anticipated” (https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/a-view-from-the-presidents-chambers-july-2024/).

His ringing endorsement was followed by the Government’s decision in February this year to expand the Pathfinder pilot programme (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-children-to-be-supported-thanks-to-multi-million-expansion-of-innovation-in-family-courts).

From this week, it comes into operation in West Yorkshire – what is believed to be the largest multi-court area so far.

I believe that families across the county will benefit, just as their counterparts elsewhere have done.

Pathfinder cannot necessarily eradicate the problem of abuse but its emphasis on problem solving means that cases in which the issue arises will be handled as promptly and as properly as possible.

Abuse is not confined to any particular geographical area or set of circumstances. Roughly 35 per cent of all the cases in which I act feature some element or allegation of abuse.

Anything which promises to get to the heart of such problems and find a workable, lasting outcome for those involved should, I feel, be wholeheartedly endorsed.

It will take time to establish how Pathfinder fares in Yorkshire, just as has done in other areas in which it has been trialled.

I don’t think that the scheme will in itself be a panacea. We must consider the very positive contributions also being made by Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR) methods, such as mediation or arbitration.

Nevertheless, as the Harm Panel Report identified, the situation demanded bold, new ideas in order to make a breakthrough.

It could well be that Pathfinder really does help families and the courts find a path to a robust solution to a truly sensitive issue.