The Government’s decision to rename the Private Law Pathfinder courts as Child Focused Courts, alongside confirmation of a national rollout expected to be completed by 2029, has been framed as a transformative step for the family justice system. In this article, we consider what these reforms are designed to achieve and suggest they may give rise to a renewed role for children arbitration in more complex private law disputes.

From Pathfinder to nationwide reform

The announcement follows a series of successful pilots in Dorset, North Wales and other early‑adopting areas. At first glance, the evidence from the pilot areas is compelling. Cases have been resolved up to seven and a half months faster, backlogs have reduced significantly and fewer matters are returning to court following final orders. The model also purports to identify risk earlier, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, and seeks to increase the level of engagement with children at an earlier stage. The President of the Family Division described the approach as a “game changer”, emphasising how the newly devised “Child Impact Report” aims to provide the court with an early snapshot of the child’s circumstances.

Renaming the model represents a further deliberate shift in emphasis. It moves away from an adversarial, hearing-led process towards an ostensibly more investigative, problem-solving approach, with early information gathering and a clearer focus on the child’s lived experience.

At its best, the new system offers a clear and more humane process for families who might otherwise be trapped in adversarial litigation. The coordinated involvement of Cafcass, local authorities and domestic abuse specialists reflects a long‑needed shift towards the early identification of risk, improved multi‑agency working and more proportionate case management.

The rebranding to Child Focused Courts is accompanied by a resolute commitment to national implementation. The model is already active in 10 of 43 court areas and will be expanded in phases, supported by additional funding and, we are told, increased social worker capacity. The Government has indicated that rollout will continue over the coming years, with full national coverage anticipated by 2029. This phased approach reflects both the ambition and the complexity of the reform. It is not simply a change in procedure, but a cultural shift requiring coordination across judges, Cafcass, local authorities and specialist support services.

A system that may not fit every case

Notwithstanding its benefits, there are legitimate and ongoing questions about whether the child-focused model will be suitable for all private children disputes. The emphasis on shorter, more targeted hearings and early evidence gathering may work well in some cases. However, in more complex matters, particularly those involving serious and contested allegations, international elements or nuanced welfare issues, there is a risk that the process may not allow sufficient time or context for the court to reach fully informed decisions and that the Child Impact Report may not be fit for purpose in such circumstances.

Concerns have also been raised about the reliance on one-off interactions with children. While considering the voice of the child is undoubtedly important, a single interview may not always capture the complexity of a child’s experience, particularly in high-conflict or coercive environments. The challenge will be ensuring that the system does not prioritise speed at the expense of depth.

These concerns do not undermine the value of the reforming agenda, but they may highlight the importance of maintaining flexibility within the system.

The increasing importance of arbitration

Against this backdrop, there is a strong argument that children arbitration will assume an increasingly important role. Arbitration offers a bespoke, flexible forum in which more complex disputes can be considered in detail. Parties are able to select an arbitrator with appropriate expertise, shape the procedure to suit the case and ensure that sufficient time is given to the issues in dispute. This can be particularly valuable where cases fall outside the parameters for which the Child Focused model is best suited.

As the court system becomes more streamlined, it is conceivable that several of the more complex and atypical cases will increasingly sit outside it. In those circumstances, arbitration provides a credible and, in some cases, preferable alternative. It also offers continuity and consistency, features that can be difficult to achieve in a busy court system undergoing large-scale reform.

Conclusion

The introduction of Child Focused Courts is a bold and, in many respects, welcome attempt to address some of the longstanding criticisms of the family justice system: delay, adversarial processes and an insufficient focus on the child’s lived experience. Earlier identification of genuine risk, better support for victims of domestic abuse and a reduction in unnecessary hearings are all positive developments that could significantly improve outcomes for many families if Child‑Focused Courts achieve their aims.

Ultimately, however, the success of these reforms will be measured by the quality and durability of the decisions they produce. A system that delivers outcomes quickly, but without properly engaging with the realities of each case, risks undermining the very progress it seeks to achieve. The challenge will be ensuring that efficiency does not come at the expense of rigour and fairness, and that, where the court process cannot accommodate the complexity of a dispute, there remains a clear and credible alternative. In that context, children arbitration is likely to play an increasingly important role, providing a forum in which more complex cases can be explored with the depth and flexibility they require.

Partner, Toby Atkinson, comments:

“Child Focused Courts represent a significant shift in how private children disputes are approached. Earlier engagement with children and early identification of risk are, in theory, steps in the right direction.

“That said, it is important to recognise that not all cases will lend themselves to a streamlined process. Some disputes require a level of detail, continuity and flexibility that can be difficult to achieve within the court system, particularly as it undergoes reform.

“In those cases, arbitration offers a valuable alternative. It allows for a more tailored approach, ensuring that complex welfare issues can be properly explored and determined with the care they require. The continued development of both systems, working alongside one another, will be key to achieving the best outcomes for children.”