Challenging the status quo in Children Law: Why we believe thoughtful disruption serves families better

Family practitioners across England and Wales will all recognise the tension between what the Children Act 1989 was designed for and the reality of the families we serve in 2025. Society has evolved, dramatically, but much of the system adjudicating on children arrangements has not. At Unit Chambers, we take the view that if no one is prepared to speak out about outdated practices, procedural drift and judicial complacency, then nothing changes for the next family entering the system.

We are not disruptors for the sake of disruption. We challenge because children deserve a system capable of understanding the world they’re growing up in today, not the world of 1989.

Disruption with purpose: Speaking up when others don’t

Many of the problems faced by modern families simply weren’t envisaged by a legislative framework built around a stereotypical “nuclear household”. What hasn’t changed is the judiciary's reliance on precedent and comfort in routine.

That’s where our approach diverges. We tell clients and solicitors openly:

“If we challenge the norm once, it probably won’t land. But if enough of us raise the same issue, momentum builds. It only takes one judge to recognise a valid point, and the tide turns.”

We push boundaries respectfully and strategically. Not to create friction, but to improve outcomes not just for one case, but for the next hundred.

This philosophy is bolstered by an internal team culture built on:

• shared values about systemic improvement,

• active collaboration inside and outside court,

• collective confidence that comes from practitioners validating each other’s thinking,

• and the belief that change begins with a single courageous submission.

Solicitors tell us regularly that this is why they instruct us: they know we will ask the critical questions that others avoid.

Helping clients understand the bigger picture - without ever compromising their case

In complex children matters, we frequently encounter clients who raise legitimate concerns about systemic failings or entrenched decisions. Part of our role is to help them understand the reality: the judge hearing their case may not be the person capable of reforming the system. But if no advocate ever raises the issue, the system will never evolve.

We frame it honestly:

“If you give us permission, we’ll challenge it. It may not help your case, but it may help the next family.”

We compare it to participating in a medical trial; patients volunteer not because it guarantees a cure for them, but because it advances treatment for everyone after them. Clients understand that analogy instinctively.

The non-negotiable is this: we always prioritise the client’s outcome above any broader systemic point. If raising an issue risks prejudice, we don’t pursue it. But when the challenge is safe, informed, and principled, we take it, knowing it’s the first step toward long-term change.

Example 1: The mediation problem; when courts ignore their own rules

One of the clearest current examples of systemic inconsistency is the statutory obligation to attempt mediation before issuing a children application, a requirement the President of the Family Division has repeatedly emphasised.

Yet in practice, bypassing mediation is still often tolerated with the familiar judicial refrain:

“Well, we are where we are now.”

We disagree.

In recent cases, we have placed detailed submissions at the first hearing outlining:

• the statutory mediation requirement

• the guidance from the President

• the court’s power to pause proceedings

• and the cost implications for the innocent parent

Twice recently, judges acknowledged the points but proceeded anyway, dismissing mediation as pointless.

This misses the point entirely.

If a small number of published judgments held parents (or even solicitors) accountable for bypassing mediation, especially where substantial costs have been wasted, behaviour across the system would change overnight. Parents would think twice. Practitioners would think twice. Applications would reduce. The backlog would ease.

A single brave judgment could reshape the landscape.

Example 2: The costs question; holding parents accountable without derailing progress

Costs in children matters remain taboo, often dismissed as conflicting with the aim of promoting healthy co-parenting. But that position is increasingly unrealistic in cases where one parent flagrantly ignores orders, forces repeated hearings, and pushes the other into crippling debt.

We’re dealing with one such case now, a three-year litigation journey, orders breached repeatedly, and a parent left £10,000s in debt simply for trying to maintain a relationship with their child.

Now that progress has finally been made, we face a difficult but crucial question: should we seek costs to create accountability, or will doing so risk destabilising the fragile progress between the parents?

This is exactly the kind of decision where a disruptive yet responsible approach matters.

We can either:

• safeguard the immediate fragile harmony, or

• push for a published costs judgment that could prevent dozens of similar cases in the next year.

There is no easy answer but systemic change requires courage from advocates and judges alike.

Practical ways we disrupt the current Family Court system

1. Making hearings more efficient; not longer

We challenge the plug-and-play approach to private law hearings, where the first hearing often achieves nothing more than listing directions for a later date.

We push for:

• more strategic work between issue and FHDRA,

• early communication between legal teams,

• and longer first hearings when necessary.

A three-hour FHDRA we recently conducted resolved more issues than the entire previous year of litigation.

2. Challenging inappropriate Magistrates’ allocation

Private law cases are increasingly routed to Magistrates, whose powers restrict early issue-resolution. We intervene before the hearing to push for judicial allocation where appropriate, improving efficiency and reducing overall hearings.

3. Appeals; often taken pro bono

We’ve taken on multiple pro bono children appeals this year for parents who have been badly let down by the system. Several have succeeded. This is part of our commitment to accessibility and accountability.

4. Calling out judicial behaviour when necessary

We are not afraid to raise legitimate and evidence-based concerns about judicial conduct. Guided by the principles surrounding practitioner wellbeing in the Harman report, we do this sparingly but firmly; always with the goal of improving the environment for practitioners and the families appearing before the court.

Why solicitors choose to work with us

Family law solicitors instruct us because they know:

• We won’t simply accept “this is how it’s done.”

• We are respectful but unafraid to challenge stagnation.

• We are collaborative partners, not just courtroom advocates.

• We will raise points others overlook.

• We are united by a chambers ethos that prioritises both immediate client outcomes and long-term improvements to the system.

Above all, they know we are committed to making the system better for the next family, not just the one in front of us today.