15 years since the Family Justice Review | [2026] Fam Law 294 | March 2026

**This article was written prior to the appointment of Cobb LJ as President of the Family Law Division**

Lord Justice Cobb, Chair of the Family Law Bar Association in 2010–2011; High Court Judge 2013–2025; Lord Justice of Appeal since 2025

The Family Justice Review Reports (2011)

The Family Justice Review panel¹ produced two detailed reports in 2011. The interim report published in March 2011 identified and analysed multiple failings of a system which was 'not working'². Indeed the panel commented at that time that:

'. . . family justice does not operate as a coherent, managed system. In fact, in many ways, it is not a system at all'³.

After a wide-ranging consultation during the summer of 2011, the panel produced its final report and its detailed and comprehensive recommendations in November 2011.

The panel proposed fundamental reform to the operation of family justice in its final report;⁴ there was much to do to address its many recognised shortcomings. The creation of a unified Family Court with a single point of entry, was one of the principal recommendations of the panel. It was envisaged that this court would replace the three tiers of court then in existence; all levels of the family judiciary (including magistrates) would sit in the Family Court, and that work would be allocated according to case complexity. This recommendation of course swiftly translated into the creation of the Family Court in April 2014.⁵

The theme underlying much of the FJR panel's analysis in both its reports, and its recommendations for reform (final report), was the recognised need to improve the experience of families – especially children – through family separation. The final report focused on improving efficiencies in numerous ways – too many to cover in this short article. Among the key recommendations were: the need for greater judicial continuity in the resolution of family cases, more robust case management, enhanced judicial training, increased specialism for family judges and magistrates, improved IT systems. There was much more besides.

In both of its reports, as mentioned above, the FJR panel discussed the concept of a 'Family Justice System'; the panel intended this phrase to refer not just to the courts, but also the extensive hinterland of activity (including but not limited to family support and dispute resolution services) which were and are available to support separating families outside the courts. The panel championed enhanced use of dispute resolution and mediation, and – for many reasons – encouraged greater focus on supportive services for separating families away from the court.

In its final report, the FJR panel sought to address, through several of its recommendations, the fact that in many ways, family justice was 'not a system at all'⁶. In this regard it recommended the creation of a unifying body to oversee the delivery of family services – bringing together key departments, delivery bodies, local authority representatives and the judiciary into a single forum to oversee more coherently than before the delivery of family justice. The Family Justice Board emerged as the product of this recommendation, coming into effect in 2012.

Continuing resonance

Both the interim and final reports of the FJR panel contain much within them, in both the analysis and discussion sections, which continues to resonate for family lawyers and judges.

In the fifteen years since the reports were published, significant steps have been taken to address the deficiencies in the delivery of family justice highlighted by the FJR Panel in 2011.

Among the key developments, I highlight the following:

(a)     The FJR Panel had observed that the average public law care case was then taking over 60 weeks (and many take much longer); legislative change was proposed to drive radical change in the positioning of the courts in public law cases, in order to accelerate the court process, reduce delays and contain the applications process within 26 weeks. Legislative change was indeed effected, and swiftly,⁷ to good effect to bolster the Public Law Outline (2008). Significant steps were made to reduce delays, though factors (foreseen and unforeseen) have in the intervening years impacted the sustained success of this initiative. The sterling work of President's Public Law Working Group chaired for many years by Keehan J has been instrumental in re-invigorating the Public Law Outline in subsequent years.⁸

(b)     Also in the field of public law, the FJR specifically recommended wider use of family group conferences prior to the launch of proceedings:

 'The benefits of Family Group Conferences should be more widely recognised and their use should be considered before proceedings. More research is needed on how they can best be used, their benefits and the costs.'⁹

 This recommendation currently finds its home in clause 1 of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which, at the time of writing (January 2026), is at Report Stage (House of Lords). This clause provides that before a local authority in England makes an application for an order, it is obliged to ('must') offer a family a group decision-making meeting in order (a) to discuss the welfare needs of the child, and (b) to make a proposal in response to concerns about the child's welfare. There is much detail to be worked out around this, but after fifteen years of gestation, this legislative development is welcome.

 (c)     In private law, the FJR panel proposed the removal of 'residence' and 'contact' orders from the Children Act 1989 – mainstays then of the private law menu. A new 'child arrangements order' was recommended, in an attempt to move the debate away from the language ('contact' and 'residence') which itself had become a battleground between parents. Removing adversariality, and placing the child at the centre of the decision-making are central features of the new Pathfinder Courts (which were brought into being in 2022, by the President's Private Law Working Group – which I chaired from 2014 to 2022 – in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice). This approach to private law has been widely welcomed; the current evidence tends to show swifter resolution of cases, in a more child-focused way, in a manner which is more accommodating of victims of domestic abuse, and in a way which is more outcomes-driven. Current evidence suggests that parties do not tend to return to court for further orders.

 (d)     One further significant feature of the two reports of the FJR Panel warrants mention here; namely, the ultimate recommendation against the inclusion of a statement into legislation to reinforce (by way of a presumption) the importance of a child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, alongside the need to protect the child from harm. Having initially (in its interim report) proposed such legislative change, it retreated from this proposal by the time of its final report, expressing concern (reflected in the consultation responses) that any presumption in the Children Act 1989 would cut across the core principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. The report reads:

 'The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children. Progress depends on a general social expectation of the full involvement of both parents in the lives of their children before separation, not on changes in the law.'

Notwithstanding the final recommendation, the Government pressed ahead and introduced (by the Children and Families Act 2014) s 1(2A) into the Children Act 1989 which provided that the court was to 'presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare'. Six years later, the Harm Panel (see below) flagged real concerns about the pro-contact culture which (it was felt) had been reinforced by s 1(2A); the Harm Panel had collected evidence which showed that prioritising contact can perpetuate child abuse and wider domestic abuse in the worst cases. This has caused a radical recent rethink in Government, and moves are now afoot to introduce legislation to repeal s 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 when Parliamentary time allows. It seems that the FJR Panel, in its final conclusions, may well have been right.

Influences on family justice in the last 15 years

Time inevitably brings change, and it is appropriate to highlight three developments which, over the past fifteen years, have each exerted a significant influence on family justice and on the trajectory of reform envisaged by the Family Justice Review: Legal Aid reform (2012), the growing awareness of the impact of domestic abuse on families and children – specifically the report of the Harm Panel (2020), and the Covid-19 pandemic (2020–21).

Taking them in chronological order:

(a)     While the FJR Panel was finalising its report in 2011, the Government was consulting on the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (later the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012). Concerns were expressed at the time in many quarters that the significant withdrawal of entitlement to legal aid in private law cases was likely to undermine many of the laudable objectives being promoted by the FJR.¹⁰ Predictions were made that access to justice may be compromised, that court lists would grow longer (litigants in person not receiving advice about settlement), and the work of the judges would become more complex. The FJR Panel itself spoke of their concerns that the proposed changes in legal aid 'will inevitably see a rise in the number of litigants in person coming before the family courts'¹¹ and referenced a significant contemporary literature review of research on litigants in person working in the family justice system which highlighted the challenges which this would bring. Those who work in family justice now will be well placed to reflect on whether these predictions were well made;

(b)     In 2019, and in response to growing recognition of the prevalence of domestic abuse in private family law cases (thought to be c.60% at that time, now believed to be higher) the Ministry of Justice issued a call for evidence, and this in turn led to the preparation of the report by the 'Harm Panel', of which I was a member. The report, 'Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases', was published in June 2020. Recommendations from this report directly fed into the content of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; this legislation introduced a wider definition of domestic abuse, created the office of the independent Domestic Abuse Commissioner (with powers to monitor and improve responses to domestic abuse), provided for enhanced measures to protect victims in family and criminal courts, the created the Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (still in pilot phase). It offered much more. The Judicial College ran a huge and interactive training course for every fee-paid and salaried judge on the issue of domestic abuse; seminal judgments were delivered from the Court of Appeal which spoke, among other things, of the 'ever-increasing understanding of the impact on children of living in an abusive environment'.¹²

(c)     In March 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic gripped the world, and this had a dramatic effect on the delivery of justice across all jurisdictions in England and Wales. While the family courts adapted quickly and efficiently to remote working, the 'system' had to adapt for an extended period to the constraints placed upon it. As it happens, back in 2011 the FJR had actively encouraged the greater use of IT in the family court,¹³ and had encouraged the judiciary to think more creatively about the wider use of telephone and video technology to achieve remote hearings. Tentative steps which had been taken by HMCTS and the judiciary to deliver on this recommendation following the review were significantly accelerated for the better, albeit as a matter of necessity, when the pandemic struck in 2020–2021. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of public law cases rose; private law case numbers also increased sharply; Cafcass was constrained in what it could achieve in its investigative role; court capacity fell due to the practical difficulties of remote or socially distanced attendance. The effects of the pandemic continue to be felt.