This might to some individuals seem a strange and rather premature moment to be thinking of Christmas.

After all, people are still catching their breath following the summer holiday season.

Children have either just started or returned to school, while many parents are getting back into the routine of the working week – and shops won’t put up their festive decorations for another month yet.

However, families and the family justice system have very different schedules which can clash.

When parenting disputes arise, those involved naturally want them to be resolved immediately but that isn’t always possible given the workload handled by family courts nationwide.

Although no-one can necessarily anticipate every difficulty, some areas of disagreement can be addressed long before they become a crisis.

It is no surprise, perhaps, that divorced or separated parents do not always see eye to eye.

Figures published recently by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) show that an increasing number of individuals look to the courts for guidance on the fine detail of their children’s lives.

As the name suggests, Specific Issue Orders (or SIOs, for short) are granted in relation to very particular aspects of a child’s upbringing on which parents cannot agree. They can include how children are schooled, what religion they follow or whether and where they might go on holiday.

The latest MoJ data shows that the number of applications for SIOs has increased by 133 per cent in the last 10 years, suggesting that more parents are finding themselves unable to settle any discord between themselves.

Interestingly, the proportion of SIOs which are actually granted has remained relatively stable over the same period of time. Last year, 67 per cent of applications were successful.

The fact that one-third of applications fail could simply be due to their individual merits or demerits.

Yet I believe what it might also underline is the reluctance of family courts to see their time taken up with these matters, a view which was put on record in one notable case from October 2020.

Judge Stephen Wildblood described a number of “requests for micro-management” with which he had been asked to deal in the course of the previous month.

They included determining at which junction of the M4 motorway that a child should be handed over for contact and which parent should be responsible for holding their children’s passports.

If such applications “clogged up” the court schedule, warned Judge Wildblood, then some other individuals would be denied “the legal service that they needed”.

“Do not”, he insisted, “bring your private law litigation to the Family court here unless it is genuinely necessary for you to do so”. Those that did might face both criticism and sanction.

Judge Wildblood added: “There are many other ways to settle disagreements, such as mediation”.

His observations are just as relevant now as then.

MoJ statistics reveal that private children cases which were resolved in the first three months of this year had taken an average of 35 weeks to conclude, partially due to the volume of cases brought before the family court.

That means any questions or friction starting now between parents about how and where their children should spend this year’s Christmas holidays might not be settled until May 2027.

Although prompted by a series of cases, Judge Wildblood’s comments had an even more important context.

The very legislation – the Children Act 1989 – which governs such proceedings is very clear on what the priority should be.

Its opening paragraph states that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”.

As I’ve been telling The Times, one could reasonably argue that lengthy court proceedings and protracted parental dispute are certainly not in a child’s best interests.

That is one reason behind the expansion of Child Focused Courts (which used to be known as Pathfinder Courts) announced by the Government in March following a successful trial in various parts of the country.

They provide a much faster, streamlined resolution of cases, including an indication of how a judge might approach matters if they went to a full family court hearing.

The Government is also a keen proponent of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) methods, including mediation and arbitration.

They allow individuals to talk through their differences in a less adversarial setting and manner in order to avoid the stress, costs and delays commonly associated with court proceedings.

Hall Brown Family Law offers the full range of NCDR services under its Head of NCDR, Sarah Manning.

Of course, it is only when set-piece prospective events in the family calendar, such as summer holidays, birthdays and Christmas, are talked about that disagreements can come to light.

Having those discussions in good time allows parents the chance to explore whether they are capable of coming up with solutions themselves or need to turn to trained, experienced professionals like a family lawyer for help.

Whilst that might appear something to be considered in the near future, the time which it takes to work through issues means that the festive season and the potential headaches which it can bring are really not too far away.