The fact that the family court system is busy is not necessarily news.

For some time now, experts have remarked on the amount of work handled by the courts handle and the impact that any delays can have.

One glance at the most recent data issued by the Ministry of Justice at the end of June proves the first matter (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025/family-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025).

They show that the family courts dealt with 260,582 cases during 2024 – a rise of almost eight per cent on the figure exactly a decade before.

Furthermore, divorces which were concluded during the first three months of this year had taken 71 weeks to reach their conclusion, seven weeks longer than the same quarter in 2024.

Even though the statistics showed that private children cases (ie, those not funded by local authorities) took two weeks less to close than the previous year, the potential effect of cases relating to children’s well-being or living arrangements taking the best part of a year to finish had already been highlighted by the National Audit Office (NAO).

In May, the NAO stated that “children and families are still waiting too long to have their cases resolved” (https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/improving-family-court-services-for-children/).

The NAO identified a number of reasons for the current predicament, including the dilution of responsibilities across several different government departments, a lack of consistency in ministerial oversight and a “lack of capacity in all parts of the system”.

Among those who offered their immediate response to the NAO report was my colleague Emma Hubbard, who told The Times’ that a publicly-funded triage system to determine how best to deal with cases in their earliest stages would be of immense benefit  (https://www.thetimes.com/article/5fd83e3b-314d-4d69-a3b6-ef9c7e4d2f0a?shareToken=fd6f8eab42b2f61c153c8d66c6fadc54).

Her suggestion has now been echoed in a comment piece for the same ‘paper by Anne Barlow, an emeritus law professor at Exeter University (https://www.thetimes.com/article/51c7b8af-ee42-490f-b9fa-f3998e2648b2?shareToken=81cb5e70a8a237e3f3facb4c4970fe4c).

She has argued that “robust, accessible triaging, led by highly trained and accredited professionals, would unlock court time”.

Professor Barlow is not alone in describing the need for such an arrangement as more pressing by the day.

I would point out that everyone within the family justice system – judges, lawyers and clients alike – wholeheartedly agree about the importance of limiting the potential for delays and the stress which can be associated with court proceedings to affect children, in particular.

After all, the legislation which governs children proceedings – the Children Act 1989 – states quite explicitly in its opening passage that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration” (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1).

Finding an effective and more expedient solution to the current situation has assumed priority for many individuals and organisations.

At Hall Brown, we established a team charged with delivering what is referred to as non-court dispute resolution (NCDR, for short).

It offers a full range of NCDR services, including mediation, arbitration and collaborative law and is increasingly in demand.

That is because approaches like mediation really do work.

A study by the Family Justice Council (FJC) found that 69 per cent of issues dealt with via mediation did not then need to go to court (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Guide-to-Family-Mediation-for-the-Courts-2024.pdf).

Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division of the High Court – and, therefore, the country’s most senior family judge – has urged separating couples to explore mediation as a sensible alternative to court (https://basw.co.uk/about-social-work/psw-magazine/articles/separating-couples-urged).

Sadly, there will always be people who regard airing their disagreements in court as something of a fundamental right.

The hope is that whether it’s due to the creation of an extra ministerial seat in Westminster or the penny dropping on a more casual basis, those men and women will be the minority as more and more realise the undoubted merits of mediation.