The Family Court handles a broad range of issues centered on the safety, upbringing, and welfare of children.
The most common cases involve Child Arrangements Orders, which determine where a child lives and how much time they spend with each parent.
If parents cannot agree on specific aspects of a child’s life—such as which school they should attend, whether they should receive certain medical treatments, or if one parent can move abroad with them—the court can issue a Specific Issue Order or a Prohibited Steps Order to resolve the deadlock.
The court’s guiding principle in all these matters is the “welfare principle,” meaning any decision made must be in the child’s best interests rather than the parents’ preferences.
In addition to private disputes between parents, the Family Court also deals with public law cases involving local authorities.
This includes Care Orders or Supervision Orders, where there are concerns about a child’s safety or risk of significant harm.
The court also manages applications for Special Guardianship and Adoption, as well as financial provision for children under Schedule 1 of the Children Act.
The court appoints a CAFCASS officer to ensure the child’s voice is heard in proceedings.
They meet the family and provide an independent report to the judge.
CAFCASS stands for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.
They are an independent body of social work professionals whose primary role is to represent the “voice of the child” in family court proceedings.
When a parent applies for a court order, CAFCASS is automatically notified to conduct initial safeguarding checks, which involve speaking to both parents and checking police and local authority records.
Their task is to provide the judge with an unbiased, expert perspective on what is happening in the child’s life, ensuring that the court’s decisions are based on the child’s welfare rather than just the competing arguments of the adults.
CAFCASS acts as the “eyes and ears” of the court.
Judges rarely ignore their formal recommendations without a compelling reason.
A CAFCASS officer may write a “Work First” (safeguarding) report or, in more complex cases, a full Section 7 report, which involves detailed interviews and home visits. As neutral experts, they assess the child’s wishes, parental capabilities, and potential risks.
Their findings typically form the foundation of the final court order.
CAFCASS primarily compiles two types of reports to assist the court in making decisions.
The Safeguarding Letter is produced at the very start of a case.
It is sometimes referred to as a “Schedule 2” or “Work First” report.
To create this, a CAFCASS officer carries out background checks with the police and local authorities and conducts brief telephone interviews with both parents.
The goal is to identify any immediate risks, such as domestic abuse, substance misuse, or mental health concerns. The judge receives this letter at the first hearing (FHDRA).
It recommends whether to proceed with mediation or if the case requires further investigation.
In more complex or disputed cases, the court may order a more detailed Section 7 Report.
This is a comprehensive investigation where the officer spends significant time interviewing the parents, visiting their homes, and—most importantly—speaking with the children to understand their feelings and wishes.
They may also contact schools or doctors to get a full picture of the child’s life. The final report provides a clear set of recommendations to the judge, such as a suggested “live with” schedule or specific conditions for contact.
Because these reports carry immense weight, they essentially act as the “roadmap” the court follows to reach a final order that serves the child’s best interests.
Modern family courts rarely order “no contact,” viewing it as a last resort.
Courts presume children benefit from relationships with both parents unless evidence proves “significant harm.”
Statistics show that over 90% of cases maintain some form of contact.
Even with abuse allegations, courts usually manage risks through supervised or indirect contact instead of severing bonds.
Judges grant “no contact” orders only when risks to the child’s safety remain unmanageable.
These cases include severe domestic violence, sexual risks, or dangerous, unpredictable behavior defying supervision.
However, courts prioritize rehabilitation. Judges often mandate therapy or perpetrator programmes even while pausing contact.
These conditions aim to safely reintroduce contact once the parent is ready.
When a parent makes an accusation of drug misuse, the court’s primary concern is whether the substance use impairs that parent’s ability to provide safe, consistent care.
The court does not simply take one parent’s word for it; instead, they usually order a Fact-Finding hearing or, more commonly, professional toxicological testing.
This typically involves hair strand testing, which can provide a month-by-month history of drug use (usually covering the last 3 to 6 months), or breath and blood tests for alcohol.
The accused parent is usually required to pay for these tests initially, though the cost can sometimes be shared or reclaimed if the results are clear.
The impact on child arrangements depends entirely on the “severity and risk” identified in the results.
If a parent tests positive for Class A drugs or shows a pattern of heavy chronic use, the court may immediately implement supervised contact at a professional contact centre to ensure the child’s safety.
Courts rarely stop contact, instead requiring parents to stay sober, seek support, and submit to regular testing.
Showing progress and compliance often allows the court to increase contact from supervised visits to overnight stays.
Courts investigate whether a parent’s drinking pattern risks the child’s safety or emotional well-being.
Courts order biochemical assessments to move beyond mere allegations.
These tests track alcohol consumption over three to six months using Hair Strand Testing. Blood tests like PEth or LFT identify recent heavy drinking or chronic damage.
These sophisticated tests distinguish between total abstinence, social drinking, and chronic excessive use. They provide the judge with a clear drinking profile of the parent.
The results and parental behavior determine the impact on child arrangements. Courts may supervise contact or mandate 24-hour alcohol-free periods for hazardous drinking.
Courts may require parents to use breathalyzers like Soberlink to prove sobriety in serious cases.
However, the court aims to maintain the relationship safely. Judges increase contact from supervised visits to overnight stays if parents provide consistent, clean tests.
When accusations of domestic abuse are raised, the court follows a specific procedure known as Practice Direction 12J.
This requires the judge to determine at the very start of the case whether the alleged abuse is likely to impact the safety or well-being of the child or the other parent.
If the allegations are denied but could be decisive to the outcome, the court may hold a Fact-Finding Hearing. This is a separate trial where the judge listens to evidence and decides “on the balance of probabilities” whether the abuse actually occurred.
The court prioritizes preventing harm, often pausing direct contact or mandating supervision while it assesses risks.
If domestic abuse is “found” (proven) by the court, it does not automatically result in a total “no contact” order, but it does significantly shift the burden of proof.
Courts often require abusive parents to demonstrate behavioral changes, such as completing a DAPP or specialized therapy.
The court may initially order indirect contact (letters or video calls) or supervised contact at a professional center to monitor the parent-child interaction.
The court permits unsupervised contact only when risks decrease and it serves the child’s best interests.
A Fact-Finding Hearing allows a judge to investigate disputed allegations, such as abuse or harm.
Family Courts use the “civil standard of proof,” rather than the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.
Judges decide if an event likely happened, using a 51% probability threshold.
The judge uses established facts as the foundation for future child arrangement decisions.
This formal process requires the applicant to submit a “Kraysman Schedule” of specific incidents. This document details incidents with dates and supporting evidence.
The other party must provide a written response to each allegation.
During the hearing, the court requires parties and witnesses to provide oral evidence. Lawyers will cross-examine both sides.
The court provides “special measures” for victims, such as screens or separate building entrances. These measures ensure you give evidence safely, free from intimidation.
Family Courts almost always require parents to “testify,” a process known as giving oral evidence.
Judges hear from parents directly at Fact-Finding or Final Hearings if parties dispute facts.
This allows judges to assess credibility and hear your side of the story. Judges observe how you respond to questions about the child’s welfare or specific allegations.
When testifying, you stand in a witness box or remain seated. The other party’s solicitor cross-examines you.
Courts prevent self-representing parents from cross-examining you directly if domestic abuse allegations exist. In these cases, the court appoints a qualified legal representative to ask questions for them.
The judge may also ask you questions directly to clarify points.
Testifying can be daunting. However, the Family Court remains a private setting. The judge’s goal is gathering information to make the best decision for your child.
Family Courts rarely expect children to testify in person or enter a witness box.
Courts view cross-examination as too stressful and potentially damaging for children.
Instead, CAFCASS officers or social workers bring the “voice of the child” into the courtroom.
Professionals meet children in neutral settings to understand their wishes. They relay this information to judges in Section 7 reports.
This allows judges to consider the child’s perspective without forcing them to choose sides before their parents.
Occasionally, judges agree to meet older children or teenagers privately in their chambers.
This is not formal testimony; judges explain the process and ensure the child feels heard.
In rare, exceptional cases, courts may allow a child to give evidence if absolutely necessary.
Strict “Working with Vulnerable Witnesses” guidelines govern these rare instances.
Children often give evidence via pre-recorded video or live links from separate rooms to avoid courtroom pressure.
Breaking a court order is a serious matter, as these orders are legally binding from the moment they are served.
If you fail to follow the terms without a “reasonable excuse” (such as a genuine medical emergency or immediate safety risk), the other party can apply for an Enforcement Order (using Form C79).
The court must be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” that the breach occurred. If proven, the judge has a range of powers to ensure future compliance, starting with a formal warning or a requirement for you to attend a Separated Parents Information Programme (SPIP) to understand the impact of your actions on your child.
For more persistent or serious breaches, the penalties become increasingly severe.
The court can order you to perform unpaid work (between 40 and 200 hours of community service) or pay financial compensation if the other parent lost money due to the breach (for example, the cost of a wasted holiday).
In extreme cases where a parent repeatedly ignores the order, the court may even vary the order to change who the child lives with or, as a final resort, find you in contempt of court, which can lead to heavy fines or imprisonment.
Courts prioritize child welfare, avoiding punishments that harm your relationship while decisively enforcing all court orders.
The Family Court uses a Specific Issue Order (SIO) to resolve parental deadlocks on significant upbringing decisions.
Common examples include decisions on schooling, medical treatment, name changes, or religious upbringing.
These are decisions that fall under “Parental Responsibility,” and if both parents cannot agree, the court steps in to act as the tie-breaker.
The court manages these issues by applying the “Welfare Checklist” from the Children Act 1989, ensuring the decision is based entirely on the child’s best interests rather than the parents’ rights.
Before a judge makes a ruling, they often require a report from CAFCASS and may ask for expert evidence—for example, an educational psychologist’s report if the dispute is about a school, or a consultant’s opinion for medical disputes. If one parent is trying to stop something from happening (like moving the child abroad), the court uses a related tool called a Prohibited Steps Order (PSO).
Both orders are legally binding, and the court’s goal is to provide a final, clear resolution so the child isn’t caught in the middle of ongoing parental conflict.
If you and the other parent cannot agree on a school, the court must resolve the deadlock using a Specific Issue Order (SIO).
Under English law, school choice is a major part of “Parental Responsibility,” meaning neither parent can unilaterally enrol a child in a new school or change their current one without the other’s consent.
If you apply for an SIO, the judge will not simply pick the “best” school on paper; instead, they focus entirely on the child’s best interests and the Welfare Checklist.
They will look at practical factors like the proximity of the school to both parents’ homes, the child’s existing friendship groups, any special educational needs, and the school’s Ofsted rating. The court may also consider the child’s own wishes if they are old enough to express a reasoned preference (typically from age 11 or 12).
It is crucial to act early, as the court process can take several months—often longer than the actual school admissions window.
You can apply for a Prohibited Steps Order (PSO) to prevent a school change without your consent, effectively “freezing” the situation until the court makes a final decision.
One important catch: the court cannot “jump the queue” or order a school to give your child a place if they are already full or if you are out of the catchment area.
The court’s order effectively gives one parent the legal authority to sign the admission forms for a specific school, but you still have to navigate the standard local authority admissions process.
Family Courts arrange special occasions so children celebrate with both parents fairly. Courts favor alternating schedules for these emotional dates.
Standard orders might assign Christmas Day to Parent A in even years and Parent B in odd years.
Alternatively, parents split holidays. The child spends Christmas Eve and morning with one parent, then moves at midday to the other.
For Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, a “common sense” rule applies. The child visits the parent being celebrated, ignoring routine schedules.
Parents often manage birthdays by sharing time or alternating who hosts the main party each year.
Courts encourage flexibility. However, writing arrangements into a formal Child Arrangements Order prevents last-minute arguments. This protects children from parental tug-of-wars during celebrations.
When parents cannot agree, the Family Court applies a rule of equality and structure.
The court splits school holidays—half-term, Easter, and Summer—equally between parents.
Parents often divide the long summer break into two or three-week blocks or alternating weeks.
This ensures quality time with both families. Each parent may take the child on vacation.
Laws regarding overseas holidays are very specific.
Hold a “Lives With” order? You may take the child abroad for 28 days. Avoid interfering with contact.
Without such an order, you must obtain written consent from everyone with Parental Responsibility.
Courts often include “Holiday Clauses” to prevent disputes. Travelling parents must provide notice and itinerary details early.
Unreasonably withheld consent? Apply for a Specific Issue Order. Courts usually approve holidays absent any abduction risk.
A “Lives With” Order (formerly known as “custody” or “residency”) is a formal ruling by the Family Court that determines which parent a child primarily resides with.
This order is part of a Child Arrangements Order and focuses on providing the child with a clear, stable home base.
Courts designate the parent the child lives with, while the other parent has “spends time with” arrangements.
Alternatively, a “Shared Lives With” order allows children to spend significant time at two different homes.
This designation is less about winning or losing and more about establishing a clear practical structure for the child’s day-to-day life.
Beyond the daily routine, a “Lives With” Order carries specific legal weight. Most importantly, it gives the named parent the right to take the child abroad for up to 28 days without the written consent of the other parent (provided this doesn’t conflict with any other court-ordered contact).
It also offers a level of security; if the other parent refuses to return the child after a visit, having a “Lives With” Order makes it much easier for the police or the court to take immediate action. However, having this order does not “cancel out” the other parent’s Parental Responsibility.
You are still legally required to consult the other parent on major decisions, such as changing the child’s school, their surname, or making significant medical choices.
A Prohibited Steps Order (PSO) is a court injunction preventing a parent from taking harmful or irreversible unilateral actions.
The most common use of a PSO is to prevent a parent from relocating the child to another part of the country or removing them from the UK entirely.
It also prevents school changes, child removal, or contact with individuals posing risks.
Due to urgency, courts may grant “ex parte” PSOs without the other parent present to prevent immediate child removal.
Once the order is served, it is legally binding, and breaching it can have serious consequences, including being found in contempt of court. The order remains in place until a specific date or until the court makes a further ruling.
Like all matters in the Family Court, the judge’s decision to grant a PSO is based entirely on the “welfare principle,” meaning they will only restrict a parent’s actions if it is clearly necessary to protect the child’s best interests.
Use the C100 form to apply for Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps, or Specific Issue Orders in Family Court.
It is the gateway to the court process for parents, grandparents, or guardians who have been unable to reach an agreement regarding where a child should live or how much time they should spend with each parent.
The form requires you to provide basic details about the children, the adults involved, and a brief summary of what you are asking the court to decide.
You must usually attend a MIAM before submitting a C100, unless you qualify for exemptions like domestic abuse.
Once the C100 is filed and the court fee is paid, it triggers the start of the legal proceedings.
The court will send a copy of the application to CAFCASS, who will then begin their initial safeguarding checks.
It is important to be clear and concise when filling out the “reasons for application” section, as this is the first document a judge and the CAFCASS officer will read to understand the nature of the dispute.
If there are safety concerns or allegations of harm, you must also file a supplementary form called a C1A alongside the C100 to ensure the court is aware of these risks from the very beginning.
A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) is a court order that places a child or young person to live with someone other than their parents on a long-term basis.
It was designed to provide more stability than a standard foster care arrangement but without the total legal severance of an adoption.
Courts usually grant SGOs to kinship carers, like relatives or family friends, when birth parents cannot care for children.
The order remains in force until the child turns 18, and it gives the Special Guardian “super-parental responsibility,” meaning they have the final say on most day-to-day decisions without needing the birth parents’ consent.
While an SGO provides the guardian with clear legal authority, it does not completely end the legal relationship between the child and their birth parents.
Parents retain limited Parental Responsibility.
They retain the right to discuss major changes, like adoption or moving abroad.
Courts typically set contact schedules to maintain the child’s safe relationship with birth parents.
Local authorities must assess Special Guardians for support, including financial allowances or therapy.
This helps children remain safely within their extended family network when they cannot live at home.