The rebranding of Pathfinder Courts to “Child-Focused Courts” marks a significant shift in how private law Children Act proceedings are managed across England and Wales. In this article, Emma Williamson and Katie Stephens examine how the model operates in practice, the latest government rollout plans, and key considerations for practitioners.
What is Pathfinder?
First introduced in February 2022, the Pathfinder Court[1] seeks to bring a more investigative approach to private law Children Act proceedings, featuring earlier information gathering and the front-loading of engagement with parties. Under Pathfinder, now termed the “Child-Focused model”, the voice of the child is heard more clearly and a more holistic and multi-agency approach is used.
Attendance at a MIAM remains compulsory in most cases and non-Court resolution is strongly encouraged.
At the outset of proceedings, the Court will direct a Cafcass Child Impact Report. This incorporates safeguarding enquiries but goes further, requiring engagement with parents/parties and with the children. Cafcass will also often engage with third party agencies such as schools, GPs and probation.
By week eight of the proceedings, the Court is usually in a position to list a Decision Hearing. Often this results in final orders being made. In more complex cases, or for those families requiring further intervention or a fact-finding exercise, directions will be given to address those matters.
Once final orders have been made, the Court is able to direct a Review Hearing should it consider that to be in the best interests of the child(ren).
The rebranding of Pathfinder to “Child-Focused courts”
In a press release on 17th March 2026, the Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, announced that more Pathfinder courts shall be installed across England and Wales under the new name “Child-Focused courts”[2]. Importantly for practitioners in the Midlands, with funding of £17 million, the model will initially be rolled out across a selected number of court areas in the next financial year, to include Northampton, Coventry and Warwickshire, before being extended to the rest of England and Wales in the next few years.
This follows a highly successful trial period in several areas which saw family court backlogs halve and cases resolved up to seven and a half months faster.
The Ministry of Justice’s research on the impact of Pathfinder
This change also follows the Ministry of Justice recent research, published in January 2026, which looked at the experience of children and families of the Pathfinder pilot[3]. Both parents and children engaged in this research. Importantly, parents with prior experience of the child arrangements programme found the Pathfinder process to be more efficient. However, some domestic abuse victim-survivors felt the court process moved too quickly from the outset, preventing them from fully sharing their experiences during the court process. Furthermore, most children and families had positive experience with Cafcass, and parents felt the Child Impact Report helped children express their wishes and feelings regarding contact arrangements. However, there were mixed experiences as to whether children’s wishes and feelings were considered in the final outcome of the proceedings.
Domestic abuse and the Harm Report
The Pathfinder court was established following the release of the Harm Report (Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases[4]) and the report of the Private Law Advisory Group[5] in 2020. It is an explicit aim of Pathfinder to be “trauma aware”.
In the Ministry of Justice’s research, participants in cases involving domestic abuse had mixed feelings about whether the Pathfinder goal of reducing re-traumatisation had been met. Most participants appreciated avoiding mediation and being offered a DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and ‘Honour Based’ Violence Assessment) risk assessment and special measures[6].
Fact-Finding Under the Child-Focused Model
The fundamental principles of fact finding are as applicable under the child-focused model as they are in any Children Act proceedings. Practice Direction 12J applies, as do the leading authorities of K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468 and Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448.
Under the Child-Focused Model, Practice Direction 36Z explicitly lists the issue of fact finding as one of the matters that the Child Impact Report “may” include if such a hearing has not yet been listed. When making an application to the court for a child arrangements order, it may assist to ask Cafcass to consider the necessity of a fact-finding hearing as part of their Child Impact Report to ensure that the issue is considered early and that Cafcass’ views are obtained prior to the first hearing. Practically, this can present a difficulty as the Court will generally give directions on paper without reference to the parties in advance. It seems to the authors that there is no harm in drawing the issue specifically to the attention of the Court within the application or response document. However, if for any reason that is omitted or not possible, or if the Court does not act upon the request, it is always open to the parties where an order is made under the child-focussed model without a hearing to write to the Court to request the Court reconsider the order (FPR 2010 4.3).
There is (or should be) a standard provision within such an order to that effect, often worded “As this order is made without a hearing any party may ask the Court to reconsider this order. You must do that within seven days of receiving this order by writing to the Court and asking the Court to reconsider it”. Clearly any such correspondence must copy in all parties.
The above method should ensure that the need to consider fact finding is identified at an early stage in appropriate cases. When raising the issue, or when scrutinising the views of Cafcass on the point within any later Child Impact Report, it remains important to consider Practice Direction 12J and the criteria set out in section 17:
(a) the views of the parties and of Cafcass or CAFCASS Cymru;
(b) whether there are admissions by a party which provide a sufficient factual basis on which to proceed;
(c ) if a party is in receipt of legal aid, whether the evidence required to be provided to obtain legal aid provides a sufficient factual basis on which to proceed;
(d) whether there is other evidence available to the court that provides a sufficient factual basis on which to proceed;
(e) whether the factors set out in paragraphs 36 and 37 below can be determined without a fact-finding hearing;
(f) the nature of the evidence required to resolve disputed allegations;
(g) whether the nature and extent of the allegations, if proved, would be relevant to the issue before the court; and
(h) whether a separate fact-finding hearing would be necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case.
Under the Child-Focussed model, the court can finalise matters at a decision hearing, therefore it is essential to identify the need for fact finding early.
Risk assessments
If proceedings have been issued and issues arise prior to the decision hearing, it is important to raise them with the court. For example, if interim contact arrangements are no longer working and a child is at risk of harm then it is important for the parties and/or Cafcass to seek an urgent hearing to allow directions to be made to deal with interim contact. Cafcass have the power to do this using a Section 16A Risk Assessment and this can be a useful tool. Upon receipt of a Risk Assessment (which may or may not be shared with the parties), the Court will generally list an urgent hearing before a Judge.
Other directions
One of the potential drawbacks of this new model of child arrangements is that there is minimal lawyer involvement until the first hearing because the Child Impact Report is (usually) completed before any hearing with the parties or their lawyers present. This means that there is limited opportunity to gather any necessary evidence and parties are often in the hands of the Court as to initial directions (in circumstances where a FHDRA would otherwise have taken place). Therefore, as with fact finding issues, if you are dealing with a case where your client is alleging concerning alcohol or drug abuse or other concern which may impact the children’s welfare and require further evidence, it is generally appropriate to raise this early and make an application for any required testing to ensure that this evidence can be considered by Cafcass. It will likely assist the Court and parties if this is raised as part of the application or response documents to allow Cafcass to provide their views on the necessity of any testing.
Guidance on the Child-Focused model
There is, as yet, limited authority on the application of the Child-Focused model. However, HHJ Scannell has given some guidance as to the expectations of the Courts in South East Wales, which in the view of the authors, can be of wider assistance as those practicing elsewhere, even if not strictly binding.
In C v D [2025] EWFC 428 (B)[7] a case had been listed under Pathfinder for a decision hearing to consider a specific issue around schooling. A late C2 issued by the mother, raising issues around child arrangements for the first time, did not meet with the Court’s sympathy. On appeal from the Magistrates (who had summarily dismissed the issue), the Court said (emphasis added) “It is essential to the proper implementation of PD 36Z that every party properly identifies the welfare case they wish to put before the Court at the earliest opportunity, and preferably before they make any application to the Court [58] … failing to identify all welfare issues at the outset also undermines the aims of Pathfinder in important ways [60]… Insofar as applications in this area are concerned, I therefore encourage all parties to identify any welfare issues and disputed arrangements at the commencement of the case, and to make the Court aware of them in the originating application or the acknowledgement form [64] .
Clearly, matters can and do arise unexpectedly, but those representing parents will nonetheless be best served if they work on the assumption that, as a general rule, the Court will expect openness and transparency as to the full extent of a party’s case at the outset of the proceedings. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Cafcass officer undertaking the Child Impact Report will also be working on the assumption that parents will have identified all the welfare issues that they wish to raise by the time that report is being undertaken.
In Re A and another [2024] EWFC 284 (B) HHJ Scannell considered an appeal against a decision of the Magistrates, who had concluded that they could not follow the recommendations of Cafcass. It was clear that the Magistrates had considered the Child Impact Report to be deficient in a number of ways. It is clear that the solicitors for the father had found themselves in some difficulty, the Court having determined (without reference to parties) that the Cafcass officer was not required to attend the hearing and that the matter would proceed on submissions. In what the Court accepted was an attempt to be helpful, the solicitors for the father had sent a list of questions to the Cafcass officer, which essentially amounted to cross examination, without advance reference to the other party and without seeking the permission of the Court. The Court was clear that this approach is entirely inappropriate. HHJ Scannell observed (again, specifically in the context of South East Wales):
47. The court’s requirement is that any party seeking to ask questions of the CIR author should either apply to vary the GK2 order within the 7 days allowed. The application should ask for an order that the Cafcass officer attend with a clear indication as to why that is necessary and the basis of any challenge to the report.
48. Alternatively, it should seek permission to put questions which must be set out in the application itself. This will allow the court to consider whether the report fails to address important issues, which may mean a CIR2 is necessary. It also allows the court to keep a watchful eye on the timetable and to ensure the procedure adopted is fair to all parties. This is of particular significance when, as is so often the case in private law applications, one of the parties to the litigation is unrepresented.
49. Before any such application is made, the application should consider carefully whether it is a step consistent with the problem solving approach and indeed whether it is absolutely necessary.
Conclusion
The Child-Focused Model has many positives, in particular the availability of a detailed welfare report at the outset of proceedings, thus encouraging earlier settlement. In most cases, the court will aim to conclude proceedings at the first hearing and it must therefore be kept firmly in mind that if further information or evidence is required such as a fact-finding hearing or drug testing, this should be raised early. Similarly, in the event that there are issues with the Child Impact Report, the parties should act promptly and write to the court either for permission to ask questions of the author, or to request for the Cafcass officer to attend the hearing to give evidence. In short: the Child-Focused Model expects a clear and comprehensive understanding of the client’s case from the very earliest stage of proceedings.
Article co-authored by Emma Williamson and Katie Stephens.
[1] https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach#7
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/children-to-get-swifter-justice-as-new-family-court-approach-expands-nationally
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-law-pathfinder-pilot-understanding-the-experience-of-children-and-families
[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef3dcade90e0754e144bfd/assessing-risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf
[5] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Private-Law-Advisory-Group-Report-Dec-2020.pdf
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-law-pathfinder-pilot-understanding-the-experience-of-children-and-families
[7] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/428.html
This article reflects the law as of the date it was published. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational and/or informational purposes. It is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. This article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of any other member of St Philips Chambers.
