The Court of Appeal's First Ruling on the Child Focused Court: What Has Changed and What Hasn't

Earlier this month we explained how the Child Focused Court works and said to expect the new model to be tested through appeals. That has now happened.

On 29 September 2026 the Court of Appeal gave its first judgment on a case decided under the Child Focused Court (CFC) model, formerly known as Pathfinder. The case is Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216. The lead judgment was given by Sir Stephen Cobb, the President of the Family Division, who used it to set out how the new system fits with the existing law.

The short version: the procedure has changed, the law has not.

What the case was about

The case concerned four children aged between 6 and 14. In earlier proceedings the father had admitted a number of acts of domestic abuse towards the mother and the children. In October 2024 the court ordered that the children live with their mother and see their father in supervised contact, with regular telephone contact.

In October 2025 the mother stopped contact without a court order. Both parents then applied to the court. The Child Impact Report recommended ending direct contact altogether.

The judge did not follow that recommendation. He ordered reduced supervised contact, ended telephone contact because of how the father had spoken about the mother on the calls, and made an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 stopping both parents from making further applications for a year without permission.

The mother appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal on everything except the section 91(14) order against her, which it set aside.

What the CFC model changes

The court confirmed that the CFC model is a significant change in procedure and culture. It is designed to be:

• less adversarial, with a more investigative, problem-solving approach
• focused early on the child, through the Child Impact Report and hearing the child's voice
• trauma-informed, so judges and magistrates consider how arrangements will affect the child and the parent who has experienced abuse
• supportive of victim-survivors, including through referral to an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA)

What the CFC model does not change

The court was equally clear about what stays the same:

• The child's welfare is still the court's paramount consideration.
• Practice Direction 12J applies in full. Judges must apply the domestic abuse rules with the same care and rigour as before. The CFC model does not dilute them.
• The existing case law still applies, including the leading Court of Appeal cases on domestic abuse and fact-finding, Re H-N and Re K.
• The overriding objective still applies. The court must deal with cases fairly, quickly and in proportion to what is at stake.
• Procedural fairness still matters. A less adversarial process means judges have to be clearer about what the issues are and make sure both parents can take part properly.

Fact-finding: the test is still necessity

Many people assume that if they raise domestic abuse, the court will hold a hearing to decide whether it happened. That is not the law, under the old system or the new one.

The court will only decide disputed allegations where findings are necessary to assess future risk and make a safe decision about the child. Even serious allegations may not be tried if the answer would not change the outcome. Admissions already made by the other parent may give the court enough to go on.

The judgment sets out the questions judges should ask at the start of a case:

1. What is this case really about?
2. What is agreed?
3. What is actually in dispute?
4. Which disputed issues does the court need to decide before it can make a decision about the child's welfare?

The court gave an example: if the dispute is about how much contact there should be, rather than whether there should be contact at all, findings about past abuse are less likely to be needed.

It also repeated a point from the 2022 judicial guidance on fact-finding: if the risks can be managed through supervision or conditions on contact, the court will want to know why a fact-finding hearing is needed.

In Re C, the father had admitted the earlier abuse and accepted the more recent incidents the mother raised. The judge could address the risks through the terms of the order, so no fact-finding hearing was required.

Judges can limit your evidence

The mother complained that the judge set strict time limits on oral evidence in advance. The Court of Appeal said he was entirely right to keep firm control.

Parties must have a fair chance to present their case, but there is no expectation of unlimited time. The court also noted that the evidence of the parents themselves is usually far more valuable than that of supporting witnesses.

Agreements must be genuine and informed

The CFC model encourages parents to reach agreement, in and out of court. The Court of Appeal accepted a submission from the charity Rights of Women that judges and magistrates should satisfy themselves that any agreement is genuine and informed. You should not feel pushed into agreeing something you do not understand or do not think is safe.

The Child Impact Report can be wrong

The Court of Appeal was critical of the Child Impact Report in this case. It noted that:

• the report did not work through the welfare checklist, even though several of its factors were directly relevant
• the report ended with a standard line saying the checklist had been applied, which the court said was of little value on its own
• the report focused on the risks of contact continuing, but did not consider the harm to the children of losing their relationship with their father
• there had been a number of conversations between the author and one parent that were not recorded in the report
• in oral evidence the author gave a recommendation that differed from the one in her written report

The judge was entitled to depart from the recommendation and gave reasons for doing so. A Child Impact Report carries real weight, but the decision belongs to the judge.

Children's wishes are read in context

All four children said they wanted to see their father. The court accepted that, but said their wishes had to be understood in the light of the family history. One child said she would like both parents on the same island, but a big one, so they would not see each other. The court described this as showing how far the abuse had become normal in the children's understanding of family life.

Children's wishes still matter. The court will look at what might have shaped them.

Acting without an order can count against you

The judge found that the mother's decision to stop contact in October 2025 without a court order had been emotionally harmful to the children, who were not prepared for it. The Court of Appeal did not disturb that.

The court also noted that the mother had arranged a medical assessment for one child without telling the father, even though he had parental responsibility and the existing order required them to consult on health decisions. The judge was entitled to find that this was unhelpful and may have made the father more oppositional.

Barring orders must be justified for each parent

The Court of Appeal overturned the section 91(14) order against the mother. The judge had not analysed whether her conduct fell within any of the circumstances in the practice direction that justify such an order. The court said it was wrong to treat her litigation conduct as equivalent to the father's.

If the court is considering a section 91(14) order against both parents, it must look at each parent's conduct separately.

What this means if you are representing yourself

• Know what your case is really about. Be ready to tell the court what is agreed, what is disputed, and why each disputed point matters to your child's welfare.
• Focus your allegations. Explain which issues need deciding and how they affect the arrangements you are asking for. In Re C, neither side identified specific points for the judge to decide.
• Read your Child Impact Report carefully. Check whether it actually works through the welfare checklist, whether it reflects what you told the author, and whether it considers the effect of each option on your child.
• Do not change arrangements yourself. If you are worried about safety, apply to the court. Stopping contact without an order can be found harmful to your child and count against you.
• Follow the terms of any existing order. If it says you must consult the other parent on certain decisions, do so, or ask the court.
• Prepare for time limits. Work out in advance the key points you need to make and the questions you need to ask.
• Do not agree to something you do not understand. The court must be satisfied any agreement is genuine and informed.

---

You Don't Have to Work This Out Alone

If you are facing a Child Focused Court without a lawyer, a McKenzie Friend can help you identify the real issues, organise your evidence, and prepare for your Decision Hearing.

Find a Verified McKenzie Friend Near You

Bridge the Gaps: What Litigants in Person Actually Found in Court

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. If you are unsure how any of this applies to you, speak to a solicitor or a legal advice service.