The well-being of children is at the heart of much of the work undertaken by family courts across the country.

In fact, one of the main pieces of legislation governing what family courts do – the Children Act 1989 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1) – states quite clearly that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”.

That imperative to protect children during proceedings was at the heart of a major Government announcement earlier this year.

Those plans not only extended a court system designed to avoid delays that have been shown to be contrary to children’s best interests but heralded its rebranding as Child Focused Courts (CFCs).

However, a new and very important ruling by the Court of Appeal has reiterated that despite the change of approach which CFCs represent, the fundamental legal principles which have been used to date in children cases featuring domestic abuse should be ignored.

Once glance at figures issued by the Ministry of Justice within the last week made clear why there is such a need for Child Focused Courts (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026/family-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026).

They show that the number of private law children cases between April and June this year was 11 per cent up on the same period in 2025

Furthermore, the matters resolved during those three months had taken 33 weeks to bring to a conclusion.

It was against such a backdrop that the then Justice Secretary, David Lammy, threw his weight behind Child Focused Courts – previously been known as Pathfinder courts – which, he said, had demonstrated that it was possible to expedite many cases in order to avoid children being “left to bear the brunt of prolonged family disputes” (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/children-to-get-swifter-justice-as-new-family-court-approach-expands-nationally).

Mr Lammy explained that, with £17 million of Government funding, the system would be increased initially from a network of 10 court areas to eight other locations in the next year and then, eventually, across the rest of England and Wales.

The CFC model involves better co-ordination between family courts and relevant agencies, such as local authorities and police, something which is especially important when dealing with cases involving allegations of domestic abuse.

However, some professionals have questioned whether the reduced use of fact-finding hearings within the CFC system to explore such allegations in detail to speed up the decision-making risks some abuse actually being overlooked.

And that is precisely why I feel the Court of Appeal’s ruling this week merits such attention (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Re-C.-Domestic-Abuse.-CFC.-July-2026.-FINAL.pdf).

It might be regarded as important simply because it is one of the first and certainly the most high profile ruling by the new President of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir Stephen Cobb.

Yet I think that its real weight comes from the critical clarity it provides about how Child Focused Courts should operate when it comes to dealing with domestic abuse.

The case involved a couple whose marriage had ended amid admissions of physical and emotional abuse by the husband against his wife and four children.

Even after their separation and a decision that the children should live with their mother, the husband persistently breached a Child Arrangements Order, talking “inappropriately” with the children on the telephone and turning up at the family home uninvited.

A final Child Arrangements Order made in April of this year not only confirmed contact between the father and the children but made him and his ex-wife the subjects of something known as a barring order for 12 months.

The order is an instrument created by one part – section 91 (14) – of the Children Act 1989 and prevents individuals from making additional applications to court without the express permission of a judge.

The mother appealed against that restriction and sitting with two other judges – Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Zacaroli – Sir Stephen Cobb agreed.

Their reasoning why is what is most notable in the ruling. They have emphasised that although Child Focused Courts function differently to what has gone before, the law itself has not changed.

In particular and even without a fact-finding hearing, Sir Stephen Cobb insisted that CFCs should continue to bear in mind the impact of domestic abuse on children.

That abuse is harmful to children is a point enshrined in a key piece of guidance for judges and magistrates, Practice Direction 12J (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12j).

Sir Stephen described explicitly how “it is important to emphasise that the CFC model does not in any respect undercut or dilute” judges’ obligations under the Practice Direction, which should be applied “with the same care and rigour as at present”.

In summary, the CFCs have changed the process but not the protections afforded to children or victims of domestic abuse.

Whilst there is a need to make sure that cases are managed efficiently so as to ensure that they remain the kind of “swift” justice for families which was originally intended, haste should not obscure any assessments about a child’s welfare or how victims are treated when abuse allegations are present.

That, in itself, is a very useful message as the network of Child Focused Courts expand.