We repeatedly hear about delays in the justice system caused by chronic underfunding and a shortage of judges. However, what exactly is referred to and how is this impacting the average family which has to rely on the family courts.
Children and families are being let down by unacceptably long delays in the justice system. To begin with, in its report on improving family court services for children, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)[1] found no urgent need in government to bring down waiting times to acceptable levels, as written evidence to its inquiry raised concerns over a process that is inefficient and hard to navigate for families. According to the National Audit Office, Children and families are still waiting too long to have their cases resolved – at December 2024 over 4,000 children were in proceedings lasting nearly two years or more[2]. Particularly in complex private Children Act cases, the time that it takes from issue of proceedings to final determination can stretch several years.
Nationally, resources were diverted to the admittedly over-pressed, under-resourced and delayed private and public children law work, and by so doing, impacted financial remedy cases. In real terms, this meant that
- First appointments were not listed until circa 16 weeks had elapsed from date of issue
- Financial dispute resolution appointments were listed t upwards of 6 months post first appointment
- Listing for final hearings was even more bleak as these hearings required more court time
- Some courts were doubling up final hearings, listing a primary and a backup trial. Unless the primary trial settled in good time before the final hearing date, this inevitably meant that fees incurred in preparing for the backup trial were lost and irrecoverable.
In an attempt to tackle these difficulties, some courts hold blitz court days where multiple cases were placed before a court in an attempt to resolve as many as possible. The problem with this approach is that the judge in question did not have sufficient time to read into the individual cases or to consider representation made by the parties.
When cases are delayed it becomes more likely that family situations will change before the case concludes, leading to the need for new expert reports and yet more court hearings. In the interim, children have to wait longer for decisions in respect of their living and/or contact arrangements; decisions as to how to protect them from any risk of harm is delayed; they experience instability and anxiety in respect of the future arrangements which may subsequently impact relationships and education. As far as the adults are concerned, they are left in a limbo where they have to continue to face ex partners some of whom have been domestically abusive, all while being unable to make long term decisions. Not only is the cost of ongoing proceedings an onerous burden, but in the interim, the asset base which is the subject of litigation is slowly depleted.
Anyone who has had to avail of the court system will also be acutely aware of the oftentimes unsatisfactory environments in which parties are expected to provide instructions and negotiate. Much of the building stock housing courts are in urgent need of repairs and/or refurbishment. There is a distinct lack of basic amenities such as working toilets, canteens and importantly conference rooms.
Settling cases out of court can not only be quicker but cheaper for the parties concerned. Parties can agree upon matters to which a court has no jurisdiction to direct, and if a settlement is agreed upon, the likelihood of the parties complying with the terms is higher. It obviously also brings with it with benefits for children involved.
Alternative dispute resolutions, and in particular private Dispute Resolution Appointments (pDRA) and private Financial Dispute Appointments (pFDR) provide a forum for this to take place. Both mirror proceedings which would take place within the court system but have the following very real advantages:
- The hearing is listed on a date that is suitable to the parties and their legal teams as opposed to a date imposed by the court. There is no prospect therefore that the hearing will be vacated at short notice to facilitate another case.
- The parties can determine what level of tribunal and the identity of the judge they wish to engage. There is therefore little prospect that the judge hearing the case is ill suited for the task.
- Only 1 case is listed before that tribunal. The pFDR and pDRA judge therefore will have had ample opportunity to consider all the relevant papers and to receive submissions, without being concerned about a queue of other cases to follow. This in turn means that the judge is able to provide a more fulsome guidance to the lay parties, which improves the prospect of parties resolving or reducing areas of dispute.
Improving family court services for children
Dominique Gillan & Suzanne Kelly – 21st April 2026
