Family Court

No Child Should Be a Case Number: When a Child’s Future Is Decided in a Courtroom in 40 Minutes

Published on
Kristyna Hawkett
Family Mediator and Founder
MinusOne Mediation

Every three months, more than 14,000 new disputes between parents about their children are brought into the court system in England and Wales, affecting over 20,000 children¹.

Let’s just stop and think about this. No child should be a case number. And yet, in practice, that is often what they become – part of a process designed to manage disputes, not childhoods. While the number of cases is unsettling, it is even more concerning that, inside the family court, a judge may have less than an hour – sometimes as little as 40 minutes – to move a case forward.

Forty minutes.

That’s less time than most families spend deciding where to go on holiday. Less time than a single school lesson. Less time than it takes to watch an episode of a television drama that, ironically, often portrays the very system parents find themselves in. And yet, some people continue to treat the court process as the default route for resolving parenting disputes.

Private law children’s cases are rising steadily. Behind each application is not just a legal issue, but a family in distress, often already struggling to communicate, regulate emotions, or make decisions together. And very often, it’s not as complicated as it first appears. It’s two parents stuck in conflict – hurt, frustrated, and often angry, reacting to each other, rather than stepping back and thinking clearly about what their child actually needs.

Of course, there will always be cases where court involvement is necessary, and where there are safeguarding concerns or risks that require clear legal intervention.

But for many families, that is not the starting point. Parents don’t enter the system thinking they are doing anything wrong. Most come in believing they are protecting their child or doing what they believe is right.

Frustration, hurt and anger can begin to shape how parents speak to, and about, each other. Over time, this can influence how a child experiences both parents. And this is where things become more complex because in the middle of conflict, perspective tends to shift. What may begin as two parents trying to do what they believe is best for their child can, over time, move further away from the child’s needs and deeper into conflict.

A court order can decide where a child lives, how much time they spend with each parent, and how decisions are made. But it doesn’t teach people how to parent together. It doesn’t help when a teenager suddenly refuses contact. It doesn’t ease the tension. It doesn’t prepare parents for the everyday realities of birthdays, new partners, changing routines, or a child trying to adjust between two homes.

At best, a court order gives structure. But real life doesn’t follow a timetable. And still, many parents come away believing that once the order is in place, things will fall into place too. Often, they don’t.

One of the biggest misunderstandings in family disputes is the idea that someone has to be right. But parenting after separation isn’t about winning. It’s about adjusting. Children don’t benefit when parents become fixed in their positions. They benefit when parents can stay flexible and keep talking, even when things are difficult.

But going through a court process together doesn’t always support that. In many cases, it can make it harder for parents to work together afterwards. This is where the system often falls short. Because while the legal process focuses on evidence, statements, and outcomes, children need something different: stability, understanding, and the sense that both parents can still work together, even if they’re no longer together.

For many parents, the legal process itself becomes an additional barrier. Legal terminology, let’s call it “legalese”, can feel overwhelming, confusing, and inaccessible for those without a legal background. Parents are expected to navigate complex procedures, interpret formal documents, and make important decisions, often without fully understanding the implications, at a time when they may already be struggling themselves. Parents are asked to make long-term decisions while everything still feels uncertain.

When parents have the right support around them, they are better able to think clearly, communicate more effectively, and make decisions that their children can actually live with. The end of a relationship is not the end of a family. It is a restructuring. And that restructuring doesn’t stop once the paperwork is signed or the order is made. In many ways, that’s when the real work begins.

Co-parenting is not a static arrangement – it evolves over time as children grow, circumstances change, and new challenges arise. Yet ongoing support for families after separation is often minimal. We prepare people for the legal process. We rarely prepare them for what comes after.

If the goal is truly to prioritise children, then we need to rethink how we approach family disputes. We need to move away from the idea that resolution is something imposed from the outside, and towards approaches that empower parents to create sustainable, workable solutions themselves. This is not about limiting options for families, but about expanding them.

It’s about recognising that while courts have an essential role, they are not designed to meet the full spectrum of needs that separating families experience. And perhaps most importantly, it’s about acknowledging that children should be spared unnecessary conflict wherever possible.

The reality is clear. The system is under pressure, and families are left to navigate a process that was never designed to support them holistically. But there is another way. One that looks at how families can resolve disputes without going through the court process and instead focuses on supporting parents to make decisions together in a way that works for their children. One that recognises that the long-term wellbeing of children depends not on court orders, but on the quality of the relationships around them. Because in the end, the question isn’t whether the court can make a decision. It’s whether that decision will truly help a family move forward. And in many cases, the answer may be more uncomfortable than we expect.

So where in the process are parents shown how to actually make it work afterwards?

 

  1. Ministry of Justice,Family Court Statistics Quarterly, January–March 2025 and July–September 2025.
    Cafcass, Management Information and Demand Data (2025).

 

About Kristyna Hawkett

Kristyna Hawkett is a family mediator and founder of MinusOne Mediation. She works with separating parents to reduce conflict and support more constructive, child-focused ways of moving forward. She helps parents navigate both the divorce process and what comes after, when day to day co-parenting becomes the real challenge.

Email Kristyna Hawkett: kristyna@minusonemediation.com

You might be interested in

Image by Envato

Coercive Control, Marital Conduct and Financial Remedies

Published on
Rachel Cook
Rachel Cook
Of Counsel
Peters &Peters

Recent reporting of the decision in LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473 has brought renewed attention to an issue that continues to evolve within family law: the extent to which coercive and controlling behaviour can directly affect financial outcomes on divorce.

In that case, the Family Court reduced one party’s entitlement significantly, awarding 30% of the relevant assets rather than an equal share. The court did so having made findings, to the civil standard, that the party had engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour alongside other “deplorable” conduct.

The underlying facts were striking. The parties married in 2011 and separated in 2023. The relationship appears to have been characterised by deception on the wife’s part, including a claim that she was a High Court judge, despite having no legal training or qualifications.

During the marriage, the husband alleged coercive and controlling behaviour, alongside verbal, emotional and, in later years, serious physical abuse. Those allegations had already been examined in earlier Children Act proceedings, where they were found to be truthful. The court also found breaches of a non-molestation order and that the wife had made false and malicious allegations of sexual abuse against the husband in relation to their child.

Against that background, the Family Court was required to determine what constituted a fair financial outcome.

From a criminal law perspective, what is striking is not only the outcome, but how familiar the underlying allegations are. Conduct of this nature is routinely encountered within the criminal justice system. Increasingly, however, patterns of behaviour are being examined at the same time in family proceedings.

Understanding coercive and controlling behaviour

Coercive and controlling behaviour is widely recognised as a form of domestic abuse. It describes a pattern of conduct designed to control, isolate or intimidate another person over time. This may include psychological abuse, financial control, monitoring of communications, or restricting independence.

Since 2015, such behaviour has also constituted a criminal offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act. Criminal practitioners are therefore accustomed to seeing these patterns assessed through investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution.

Its role in financial remedy proceedings has been less straightforward. Courts have traditionally been cautious about allowing conduct to influence financial awards unless there is a clear and measurable financial consequence.

LP v MP and the question of fairness

The decision in LP v MP reflects a more nuanced approach.

The court found that the wife had engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, including emotional, physical and financial abuse. Those findings were made on the balance of probabilities and informed by earlier proceedings. A criminal prosecution was ongoing, but the court declined to delay the financial determination.

In considering the impact of that conduct, the court acknowledged the high threshold for taking conduct into account. At the same time, it recognised that the effects of coercive control may not be readily quantifiable in financial terms.

The judge emphasised that there is a real risk of unfairness if such behaviour is disregarded simply because its financial consequences cannot be precisely measured. Conduct was not treated as requiring a penalty, but as part of the lens through which fairness is assessed.

This suggests a greater willingness to engage with the broader effects of coercive control when determining a fair outcome.

One set of allegations, two legal systems

For those approaching these issues from a criminal law perspective, the more complex question lies in how the same allegations are handled across different jurisdictions.

Conduct which may give rise to a criminal investigation is often relied upon simultaneously in family proceedings. Yet the two systems operate differently.

Criminal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt and are directed toward public justice. Family proceedings apply the balance of probabilities and focus on welfare and fairness between individuals. The same allegations may therefore be assessed under different standards and for different purposes.

This divergence has real consequences for how and when findings are made.

Timing and evidential tension

One of the most significant challenges arises from timing.

Criminal investigations into coercive and controlling behaviour are often lengthy. Charging decisions may take many months, with any trial much later.

Family proceedings, by contrast, are expected to progress more quickly. Fact-finding hearings may therefore take place while a criminal investigation remains ongoing.

From a criminal perspective, this creates difficulty. Individuals may be required to give detailed accounts in family proceedings, sometimes under cross-examination, before the criminal disclosure process has engaged and before the evidential picture is complete.

At the same time, family courts may be asked to determine serious allegations without access to material that has not yet emerged through the criminal investigation.

The two systems may therefore be examining the same conduct at different stages of evidential development.

Practical risks in parallel proceedings

These differences give rise to practical risks.

Allegations made to the police may be relied upon within family proceedings before they have been fully tested. The existence of an investigation may influence interim decisions or shape the narrative of a case.

Conversely, the need to progress family proceedings may require detailed allegations to be set out at an early stage. Those accounts may later be scrutinised within the criminal process.

Consistency of account becomes critical, but the objectives of each forum may not align. What assists in family proceedings may not do so in a criminal context, and vice versa.

This reflects a structural tension. Once parallel processes are engaged, decisions in one forum can have unintended consequences in the other.

Navigating an increasingly complex landscape

For practitioners, these cases require careful handling from the outset.

From a criminal law perspective, there is a need to be alert to how and when allegations are advanced in family proceedings, and to the potential impact of early evidence on any future investigation or prosecution. Family proceedings, however, are not simply be paused while the criminal process runs its course.

These cases also highlight the importance of coordinated advice across both jurisdictions. Issues that arise in family proceedings may have direct implications for any criminal investigation, and vice versa. A joined-up approach, drawing on both family and criminal expertise, is often essential to ensure that decisions taken in one forum do not inadvertently prejudice a position in the other.

For those directly involved, there may be an expectation that one system will resolve the issues raised in the other. In reality, the two operate independently, and outcomes may not align.

Moving forward

The growing recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour across both criminal and family law represents an important development. Decisions such as LP v MP suggest a greater willingness within the family courts to reflect that understanding when assessing fairness, including in financial outcomes.

At the same time, the increasing overlap between jurisdictions has introduced new complexity. The same allegations are now frequently considered in parallel, under different standards, on different timelines, and with different objectives.

From a criminal law perspective, these cases highlight a clear tension. They do not unfold within a single, coherent framework, but across two distinct systems that intersect without fully aligning.

Understanding that interplay, and navigating it with care, is becoming an essential part of modern practice.

Read more from Rachel Cook

Rachel Cook, Of Counsel, Peters & Peters

Rachel Cook is a criminal solicitor with extensive experience advising individuals and families at the intersection of criminal and family proceedings. She regularly advises clients at the police station and acts in complex cases involving allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, domestic abuse and reputational risk. Rachel works closely with family law teams to provide strategic, joined up advice for clients navigating separation, child arrangements and parallel investigations.

You might be interested in

Image by Envato

Why Child-Inclusive Mediation Matters More Than Ever for Separating Parents

Published on
Sarah Hawkins
Sarah Hawkins
CEO
National Family Mediation (NFM)

When parents separate, the focus understandably turns to their children – how they’re coping, what arrangements will work, and how to protect them from unnecessary distress.

But research – and increasingly, national guidance – points to one clear truth: it’s not separation itself that has the greatest impact on children. It’s how that separation is handled.

So important is this issue that the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, has recently written directly to parents going through divorce – urging them to minimise conflict and prioritise their child’s experience throughout the process.

What the Children’s Commissioner Wants Parents to Understand

In her letter, Dame Rachel highlights that:

  • It is not separation itself, but exposure to conflict, that most affects children’s wellbeing
  • Children are particularly harmed when they feel caught in the middle or pressured to take sides
  • Feeling heard and respected during family changes can make a lasting positive difference

She also makes an important point: while court is necessary in some situations – particularly where safety is a concern – many families can and should consider resolving issues outside of court.

Because when children feel that parents are “fighting for them,” it can unintentionally leave them feeling responsible for the conflict – something that can affect their wellbeing long after the legal process ends.

The Shift Away from Court

This reflects a wider shift across the family justice system.

Courts are increasingly encouraging parents to resolve matters amicably wherever possible – and the reality is that most families do not need to go to court to reach workable arrangements.

That’s where mediation comes in.

Rather than having decisions made by a judge – who may only see a limited snapshot of family life – mediation supports parents to make decisions together, in a calmer and more constructive way.

And for many families, Child-Inclusive Mediation (CIM) is becoming an important part of that process.

What Is Child-Inclusive Mediation?

Child-Inclusive Mediation gives children the opportunity to have a voice – safely and appropriately – within the mediation process.

This doesn’t mean asking children to make decisions or choose between parents.

Instead, it allows them to:

  • Share how arrangements are affecting them day to day
  • Express what’s important to them
  • Feel listened to during a time of significant change

A specially trained mediator speaks with the child privately, and any feedback shared with parents is done carefully, neutrally, and with the child’s consent.

Why Hearing Your Child’s Voice Can Change Everything

Parents naturally want to do what’s best—but without direct insight, it’s easy to misinterpret what a child is experiencing.

Through CIM, children often share things they haven’t felt able to say before – about school, routines, or emotional pressures.

That perspective can be powerful.

“Children don’t need to be put in the middle to be heard. When done properly, Child-Inclusive Mediation gives them a voice without giving them responsibility.” – Sarah Hawkins

It can help parents move away from positions of disagreement and toward solutions that genuinely support their child’s wellbeing.

Keeping Decisions Out of Court—Where Possible

For many families, mediation – and CIM in particular – can help avoid the need for court altogether.

Court proceedings can be:

  • Lengthy and costly
  • Emotionally draining
  • Determined by a judge with limited time and limited insight into your family

While judges play a vital role, they cannot fully understand the day-to-day realities of your child’s life in the way you can.

Mediation creates the space to explore those realities – and to reach agreements that are more personal, practical, and sustainable.

A Common Misunderstanding

As more families are encouraged toward mediation, there is still some confusion about what it involves.

Mediation is not the same as court:

  • It is confidential
  • Mediators do not make decisions or recommendations
  • No reports are written for a judge

This independence is what allows both parents – and children – to speak openly and honestly, without fear of repercussions.

Supporting Families to Choose Mediation

Encouragingly, support is available to help families access mediation early.

The Government’s Family Mediation Voucher Scheme offers up to £500 towards the cost of mediation.

Since its launch, it has helped tens of thousands of families reach agreements around children, finances, and housing – without escalating matters through the courts.

At NFM, we see this as a proven and cost-effective way to support families at a difficult time – reducing conflict and helping parents move forward constructively.

Final Thoughts: Putting Children at the Centre

Separation is a significant moment in a child’s life – but it doesn’t have to be a damaging one.

What matters most is how parents navigate the journey.

Child-Inclusive Mediation supports families to:

  • Reduce conflict
  • Keep children out of the middle – but still heard
  • Make decisions together, rather than having them imposed

As the Children’s Commissioner makes clear, children benefit most when they feel safe, listened to, and protected from adult conflict.

“Most parents don’t want to fight – they want to find a way forward that works for their children. Mediation helps make that possible.” – Sarah Hawkins

If you’re going through separation, it’s worth considering not just what decisions need to be made – but how you can make them in a way that truly supports your child.

About Sarah Hawkins

Sarah Hawkins is the CEO of National Family Mediation (NFM), the largest provider of family mediation services in England and Wales. A passionate advocate for conflict resolution and family wellbeing, Sarah has over 20 years of experience helping families navigate the emotional and legal challenges of separation and divorce.

📍 www.nfm.org.uk | 📧 info@nfm.org.uk | 📱 @FamilyMediationNFM

You might be interested in

Image by Envato

Designed to Fail: How the Family Court Silences Grieving Parents

Published on
Karen Omand BASoc BAThan CT
Karen Omand BASoc BAThan CT
Co-Founder
Divorceworkshop

A Legacy of Quiet Rage

When I was growing up, my mother spent years going in and out of family court with my antagonistic father. There were statements, court orders, applications, and a trial, but never once did anyone ask how it felt when my mother didn’t speak to her daughter for more than a decade. No one questioned the financial cost or the mental and emotional toll it took on her. No judge questioned what that estrangement meant to our family. No professional named it for what it was: a profound loss.

We didn’t have the language then; I certainly didn’t. But I remember the look in my grandmother’s eyes when she talked about my father, a quiet rage mixed with helplessness and grief. She couldn’t name it either, but she knew something sacred had been broken. The system didn’t care. It was focused on compliance and paperwork, not emotional devastation.

New Seat, Same Broken System

Now, years later, I find myself facing the same system, but from a different seat. I have been without child maintenance for years. When I finally went before a judge, he looked at me and stated, “Why am I here? Why are we here?”

I was stunned. Isn’t it obvious? He is not supporting his children. Isn’t that what the system is meant to enforce? Aren’t we supposed to be putting children first?

Apparently not. After seven years of him failing to pay any support, he finally settled to give me the bare minimum for only three years. Case closed. He got away with it.

I was chasing support through a system that feels less like a safeguard and more like an obstacle. It is a system that fails to recognise the reality that grief is real, not an irrelevance.

This isn’t just about divorce. It’s about the grief no one acknowledges in family court—the emotional toll of being dismissed, delayed, and denied. I know now what my grandmother must have felt: the rage that comes from watching something unjust happen in slow motion, and being told to stay quiet about it. There’s a staggering amount of grief in these situations, but no space for it. No permission to feel it. No acknowledgment from the legal system that it even exists.

Family Court Isn’t Built for Emotional Reality

The system is designed to process cases, not emotions. Family court focuses on:

  • Evidence, not lived experience
  • Timelines, not trauma
  • Strategy, not sorrow

Judges and lawyers are trained to stay detached and to keep the list moving. And while that may serve efficiency, it fails people who are in the middle of deep emotional upheaval. Grief is often treated as irrelevant, or worse, as a sign of instability. The divorce system centres power, not pain.

Once a separation begins, everything shifts toward legal positioning. The conversation becomes about custody arrangements, court filings, and parenting schedules. There’s no room to talk about the mother whose child won’t call her “Mum” anymore. Or the woman who panics every time her phone lights up with a text from her ex. Or the financial struggle that is incredibly real for so many. These aren’t “legal matters”; they’re heartbreaks. But no one in the courtroom is asking about those.

Grief After Abuse is Complicated and Long-Lasting

When divorce involves emotional abuse, coercive control, or post-separation abuse, the grief doesn’t just resolve after the papers are signed. It lingers. It morphs. And it’s often misunderstood, even by professionals. Some therapists, unless they specialise in this area, may minimise or mislabel it. Others try to fix it with surface-level advice, not understanding the depth of the injury. Women are told:

  • “You should be over it by now.”
  • “At least you’re divorced.”
  • “Don’t be high-conflict” (an assumption that both parties are responsible for the friction).

As a result, many women bury their grief. They keep going. They survive. But they do not heal, not really. Their grief becomes frozen, tucked away because there’s simply no space to process it when you’re constantly in defence mode.

Mothers are Punished for Being Emotional

This is perhaps the most damaging message of all: that to show pain is to look unstable. That expressing grief makes you “bitter” or “vindictive.” So women learn to stay silent. To avoid being labelled. To suppress what is real and raw, because they fear it will be used against them.

But the truth is, these women aren’t unstable. They’re grieving. They’re grieving the loss of time with their children, the collapse of a dream, the betrayal of someone they once trusted, and the failure of a system they hoped would protect them. They are grieving the way they have to prove they’re a good mother over and over again. They’re grieving the legal bills that drain their future, the fear every time an unfamiliar number appears on their phone, and the gut-punch of hearing their child repeat an ex’s words as their own. They are grieving the failed justice system, my mother and me included.

What’s Missing? Grief Literacy

We talk a lot in divorce circles about trauma, self-care, co-parenting, and legal strategy. But we don’t talk enough about grief. About how layered and valid it is. About how long it lasts. About how it often goes unnamed for years because survival comes first.

We need to make room for grief in the divorce conversation. Not as a sign of dysfunction, but as a natural and necessary part of this process. When someone finally says, “This is grief,” it can be a turning point. When someone tells you, “You’re not broken, you’re grieving,” it allows healing to begin.

If this resonates with you, know that your pain is real. Your heartbreak matters. And you don’t have to carry it alone, or in silence anymore. Until we make space for grief in family court, we’re not just failing parents, we’re failing children, too.

The Cost of Silence

The failure of the family court system isn’t just emotional, it’s economic. When a judge dismisses a request for support, they aren’t just ignoring a legal obligation; they are ignoring the survival of a family.

When the system refuses to see our grief, it inevitably refuses to see our financial reality, too. If you are struggling with the weight of “financial survival mode” or the shame of a changing lifestyle, you might find peace in my deep dive into the secondary losses of divorce.

Read more articles by Karen Omand BASoc BAThan CT.

About Karen Omand BASoc BAThan CT

Karen Omand holds a rare university degree in Thanatology and a B.A. in Sociology. She is the co-author of the “Just Separated Divorce Workbook,” coming out this October, and co-founder of The Divorce Workshop. As a private counsellor and coach, Karen specialises in high-conflict cases, post-divorce abuse, grief, and divorce. Having navigated her own high-conflict divorce, she is also the mother of two lovely daughters.

You might be interested in