Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216
On 29 September 2026, the first of its kind judgment was handed down in relation to the Child Focused Courts model (Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216).
What is the Child Focused Courts Model?
The Child Focused Courts (formerly the Pathfinder Project) scheme has been piloted since February 2022 and promotes a problem-solving, multi-agency approach to private children’s proceedings.
The Child Focused Courts are being rolled out across the nation and landing at the door of Merseyside and Cheshire in November 2026.
A breakdown of the Child Focused Courts process:
1. Application and Initial Gatekeeping
The application is issued and then directions are set for an initial hearing. If no MIAM has been conducted, then the proceedings may be paused until this is completed.
2. Child Impact Report
Once the application is received, CAFCASS or the Local Authority are directed to produce a Child Impact Report within 8-10 weeks. The Child Impact Report is an investigative document that provides understanding as to the lived experiences of the child, needs and wants, risk assessments and recommendations.
3. Second Gatekeeping
A Judge or legal adviser reviews the Child Impact Report and papers and evaluates whether the matter can be determined on papers only via a consent order, alternative dispute resolution outside of Court or whether further hearings are required.
4. Decision Hearing
This is the first attended hearing where the Child Impact Report is used to investigate unresolved matters and to try and conclude matters.
5. Further Hearings
If the matter cannot be agreed at the decision hearing, then the matter will be listed for a further review hearing.
If there are allegations of domestic abuse that need to be explored, then a fact-finding hearing may be listed.
Re C Background
The matter judgement follows an appeal following the making of a final child arrangement order in October 2024.
The parties had been involved in proceedings since 2023. The father made an application to the Court for contact with his four children. The relationship between the parents had been characterised by domestic abuse and the father had conceded to a number of allegations. At the time, it was the CAFCASS Guardian’s professional opinion that a Finding of Fact hearing was not necessary due to the father’s admissions. A final child arrangement order was determined in October 2024.
Contact between the children and father was stopped by the mother following breaches of the previous order. The matter was returned to Court whereby the parents both issued new applications. The mother issued an application for contact to be professionally supervised. The father issued an application to enforce and/or vary the contact order in response to the mother’s application. The father’s application was summarily dismissed.
A Child Impact Report from Cymru CAFCASS was filed with the Court on 19 February 2026. The CIR recommended that direct contact be terminated as well as monthly indirect contact, a section 91(14) CA 1989 against the father, a non-molestation order preventing the father from contacting the children and attending their home and school and a prohibited steps order to prevent the father removing the children from the mother’s care.
The matter was then listed in line with the new Child Focused Court model.
The Judge varied the October 2024 order as follows:
- Reduced the length of fortnightly contact;
- Reduced frequency to once a fortnight;
- Discharged that the children and father were permitted telephone contact.
The mother’s application for a non-molestation order and for the father’s parental responsibility to be removed was refused.
A section 91(14) CA 1989 was made against both the mother and father.
Subsequently, the mother appealed the decision.
Grounds of Appeal
The mother advanced six grounds of appeal:
The Judge was wrong to make any order for direct contact between the children and their father against the recommendation of the Guardian, and there had been inadequate attention given to PD12J;
The Judge’s assessment of the evidence and its relevance to the best interests’ decision was wrong;
The Judge wrongly managed the hearing by dealing with the issues “too summarily” in purported adherence to the ‘Pathfinder’ model in such a way as to lead to flawed decision making and an unsafe order for contact and he failed to conduct any fact-finding;
Alternatively, the errors described at (3) above represented procedural irregularity such that the decision was unjust and should be set aside;
The Judge was wrong to refuse the mother’s other applications;
The Judge was wrong to make a section 91(14) CA 1989 order against the mother.
Decision
Ultimately, the mother’s appeal was dismissed entirely except the section 91(14) CA 1989.
The Court of Appeal clarified that the Child Focused Court model does not change the law and that PD12J continues to apply when domestic abuse is an issue. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Judge had been fully aware of the domestic abuse history and considered PD12J when determining the matter.
What Does This Mean?
The Judgment continues to reinforce that Judges have the power to direct contact when it does not interfere with a child’s welfare and they can depart from CAFCASS recommendations.
The published Judgment highlights that although the Child Focused Courts change the way that private children’s matters are dealt with, it does not change the law; PD12J applies and children’s welfare is paramount.
Additionally, necessity remains a central determinative factor when establishing whether every allegation of domestic abuse requires a fact-finding hearing. (Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448). This is particularly important in the context of the Child Focused Courts model given that it aims to reduce adversarial litigation and focus closely on issues pertinent to the children.
Although the Child Focused Courts are intended to significantly reduce the time that parties are engaged in litigation, domestic abuse victims have felt rushed and do not feel they have been adequately heard particularly in cases when the matter has been determined on papers. The new model is welcomed to address the backlog that has been longstanding in the family courts, but it is imperative that this is carefully balanced when exploring allegations of domestic abuse to ensure that issues are fully understood.
The full Judgment can be found here.
