This page grows every day as people add what they have seen and learned in family court. Your experience could help someone else.
Add your observation5 real moments that catch litigants off guard, and what to do next
Daily Dilemma #5
Child Arrangements
You've received your Cafcass section 7 report and it contains factual errors — things that didn't happen, evidence that was ignored, and a recommendation built on a single 40-minut…
The Instinct
Tell the judge everything that's wrong with the report in your position statement. List every error, every missed piece of evidence, every contradiction. Surely if the court sees how flawed the report is, they'll set it aside.
The Reality
The court is not obliged to accept a Cafcass report, but judges frequently give it significant weight. Simply listing errors in a position statement does not test the report — the officer is not cross-examined on paper. Without focused questioning of the officer in the witness box, the errors remain allegations. And without understanding the statutory framework the officer was working within, some of your 'errors' may be disagreements with their professional judgment rather than factual mistakes the court can act on. Getting this wrong means the recommendation stands unchallenged and shapes the final order.
What would you do? ↓
Your next step
Daily Dilemma #4
General
A McKenzie Friend posts on social media celebrating a win in family court. Their client responds publicly by name to say thank you. The MF responds warmly. The training organisatio…
The Instinct
Everyone was celebrating a genuine win. The client chose to post publicly. The McKenzie Friend responded warmly. The training organisation amplified a good news story. None of it felt wrong in the moment.
The Reality
Under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, sharing information that identifies or is likely to identify a child involved in proceedings can be a criminal offence. That applies while a case is ongoing. Contempt of court can apply even after it ends. It applies on social media. The risk was not that the child's name was posted. It was that the parent is identifiable — which makes the child identifiable. Nobody in the chain stopped to ask: should we be celebrating this here?
What would you do? ↓
Your next step
Daily Dilemma #1
General
My documents are ready to file before the court deadline. The other side keeps missing deadlines — always last minute. Should I file mine on time, or hold back to see what they fil…
The Instinct
Some litigants in person find themselves tempted to delay their own filing until the other party has submitted theirs, hoping to better understand the other side's position before committing to their own response.
The Reality
Court directions apply to everyone equally — including you. Filing late puts you in breach of the order, even if the other side is behaving badly. They will be quick to point out your non-compliance while ignoring their own. Your compliance is your credibility.
What would you do? ↓
Your next step
Daily Dilemma #2
General
A litigant in person used AI to help draft their witness questions before a hearing, thinking it would strengthen their case. During the hearing, the judge raised questions about h…
The Instinct
This raised questions for some about how the judge might react to this method and concerns about aligning with data protection principles, especially when private details were involved. The applicant shared feelings of anxiety over potential misunderstandings if this approach was seen as inappropriate. Initially, the applicant viewed using AI as an innovative solution that could strengthen their case, hoping it would be positively received by the court.
The Reality
Courts typically emphasize the importance of transparency and adherence to data protection principles. Oversights in this area can lead to complications, misunderstandings, and may impact perceptions of the credibility of the evidence presented.
What would you do? ↓
Your next step
Daily Dilemma #3
Financial Remedy
You're the applicant in financial remedy proceedings — unrepresented. The respondent has a solicitor. Under PD27A, the applicant is responsible for preparing the bundle, but the re…
The Instinct
Keep control. If they build the bundle, they decide what's included, how it's paginated, and what gets buried. That feels like handing the other side a tactical advantage on a plate. Better to do it yourself so nothing gets excluded.
The Reality
PD27A places responsibility on the applicant, but where the applicant is unrepresented and the respondent is represented, the respondent's solicitor will typically prepare the bundle in practice. Both parties are required to agree the contents before it is lodged. The bundle must contain only what the judge needs for that hearing — not everything ever filed. But here's the tension: responsibility for preparation and control over content are not the same thing. You retain the right to review, object, and insist on additions or removals regardless of who physically assembles it.
What would you do? ↓
Your next step