The Child Resource Group welcomes the important changes to the Family Procedure Rules in England and Wales that were introduced in 2024, to encourage Non Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR) in family law cases. These changes included:
- Expanded NCDR options: Mediation, arbitration, neutral third-party evaluations, and collaborative law were added as options.
- Mandatory consideration of NCDR: Parties must complete Form FM5, outlining their stance on NCDR before the first hearing and at subsequent stages if directed.
- Court authority to adjourn for NCDR: Courts can now adjourn proceedings to promote NCDR, even without the parties’ agreement.
- Cost implications: Failure to engage in NCDR without valid reasons may lead to adverse cost orders.
These measures aim to reduce the emotional and financial strain of court cases by promoting amicable, owned resolutions, with continued developments expected in 2025. In response to this the Child Resource Group is developing, with partners, an early intervention approach, mindful of the Pathfinder Pilot (in accordance with Practice Direction 36Z).
The Pilot approach emphasizes the early gathering of information, enabling CAFCASS to conduct a Child Impact Assessment if they are already involved with a family. This assessment is comprehensive and facilitates engagement with the parents, the child, and, when appropriate, other relevant agencies such as domestic abuse services, the police, and the local authority.
The process is non-adversarial, allowing key issues to be identified early on. This helps determine whether the parties would benefit from out-of-court dispute resolution or if an agreement can be reached without court intervention. If no agreement is reached, the initial information gathering process equips the court to make more informed decisions moving forward.
The Child Resource Group is aware that, in new applications Cafcass, is not initially involved beyond undertaking their safeguarding letter. We know that Cafcass are missing in action (according to a very senior High Court Judge in a private conversation) and have a notoriously poor allocation response. The Child Resource Group suggests that following receipt of the safeguarding letter, an ISW, far more fleet of foot and responsive, could undertake a pre-emptive Section 7 Report, gathering significant, to enable the Court to make informed, evidence based decisions to arrive at the best outcome for the family. For discussion.
