The Pathfinder Pilot in practice – putting children back at the very heart of the Children Act

I feel extremely privileged to have the opportunity to see the Pathfinder Pilot in action tomorrow. HHJ Chris Simmonds, the Designated Family Judge for Dorset, sitting in Bournemouth has very kindly agreed to let me shadow him for the day.

HHJ Simmonds has already reported on the incredibly positive outcomes in cases following the shift in practice in his court. He has made clear the new process does all it can to avoid the need for parties to attend court at all, but if that is required, it will ensure the court has the right information early on to make the right decisions. He has said: “It’s about multi-agency working to recognise and respond at the earliest possible opportunity. Taking early steps to identify domestic abuse and manage risk.”  

But what is the Pathfinder process, where does it currently operate and how does the landscape look for the future?

A potted history of practice – from bare bones to a new Pathfinder

When the Children Act 1989 was brought into force at the start of the 1990s, it brought with it a monumental shift in the law in relation to children. It put the welfare of the child right at the centre of any decision affecting a child. Indeed, the very first section of the Act states unequivocally that a “child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”  Paramount is a strong word, but the right word to have incorporated.

The practical framework that has built up around that principle since then has placed increasing focus on the voice of the child, early intervention and non-court dispute methods. For many years, there was only a bare procedural skeleton with varied local practice in different areas. Proceedings were often litigation-driven and parent-focussed with little structure on alternative resolution or any early welfare assessment so cases would become more protracted and high-conflict. In 2004, the Private Law Programme (“PLP”) was introduced to unify and standardise procedure in private law children cases. It took a more pro-active role in case management and aimed to protect children from protracted disputes by identifying high conflict cases early, manage delay and minimise adversarial conflict.  Mediation was encouraged and a structured approach to hearings and judicial decisions implemented where alternative resolution failed. 

In 2011, an independent review chaired by David Norgrove, published the Family Justice Review (“FLR”). The FLR recommended systemic reform with further changes to legal practice, albeit with similar goals in mind to the PLP. As a result, the Child Arrangements Programme (“CAP”) was introduced in 2014, as reflected in Practice Direction 12B.  Recognising the welfare focus of the 1989 Act, the changes acknowledged the power of language and so concepts of “residence” and “contact” which inadvertently highlight parental rights and labels, were replaced with descriptors for who the child “lives with” and “spends time with”. Mediation was made all but compulsory, with the need for parties to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting prior to issuing proceedings in almost all cases, save for limited exceptions (e.g. urgency or domestic abuse cases).  Early safeguarding checks, early intervention and more robust case management and process were also implemented.

More recently a further review was undertaken, this time with specific focus on how family courts handle cases involving domestic abuse and other serious harm in private law children cases.  The Harm Panel Report was published in 2020 and made further recommendations for reform and training. Perhaps surprisingly – or maybe unsurprisingly – in many ways the thrust of the recommendations clearly echo of the early drivers of the PLP and the goals of the CAP reforms: the damage caused by an adversarial system, improved risk assessment, greater focus on the voice of the child and improved safeguarding.

More specifically, the Harm Panel Report encouraged better training for all professionals and improved multi-agency coordination between the family courts, police and social services. It aimed for a shift to a safety-focused, trauma-informed, investigative “problem-solving approach based on open enquiry”.

And so the Pathfinder Pilot was born. Originally trialled in private children law cases in Dorset and North Wales from February 2022, it has already been extended and is now in place across all of Wales, Dorset, Birmingham and West Yorkshire. Later this year, the pilot will be extended to cover the rest of the West Midlands and early in 2026 it will expand to Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. There are currently no immediate plans to open up the Pilot to London although there are powerful voices lending their support to a speedy national rollout (see further below).

Radical overhaul – robust, early, multi-agency, child focussed approach

Pathfinder completely turns the process on its head, radically reshaping procedure and marking the most significant shift of approach since the Children Act was introduced.  It takes an inquisitorial, proactive approach to cases with the aims of: (i) promoting non-adversarial problem-solving; (ii) effectively managing cases through the courts with early triaging; and (iii) enhancing the voice of the child, putting children and families first.  

In pursuit of these aims the new approach front-loads the welfare assessment so the child’s voice, wishes and feelings are heard right at the outset. As its name suggests, following that early, up-front assessment, the aim is to find the most appropriate path for each case. The process is broadly as follows:

• Pre-action protocol - Unless there is domestic abuse, risk of harm or the risk of removal of a child from the jurisdiction, attendance at a Mediation Information and Assessment meeting is expected. The pre-action protocol also aims to divert suitable cases away from court by highlighting: (i) non-court dispute resolution principles and resources available to potential litigants to keep the case out of court; (ii) the need to reframe issues to consider them from the child’s perspective; and (iii) the presumption that parental involvement by both parents will promote a child’s welfare, unless unsafe to do so.
• Application issued – If proceedings are issued, the first stage will be for the gatekeeper to consider and allocate the case appropriately. Provided there is no urgency, the case proceeds to the first of two stages, known as the “Information Gathering and Assessment” stage.
• Stage 1: Information Gathering and Assessment - This focuses primarily on the preparation of a Child Impact Report (“CIR”) which includes safeguarding checks, calls with each parent/party, a risk assessment, information gathering from relevant agencies (including school, doctors, domestic abuse services) and, importantly, engaging with the subject child, either directly or indirectly, to ascertain their wishes and feelings. There is active judicial management of the contents of the CIR which may, if so directed, include a section 7 welfare report.
• Case management – Once completed, the CIR is provided to the court with a summary of the key evidence, risks and recommendations. A Judge will review the CIR and decide whether the case can proceed to the second stage or whether any further investigation is required e.g. a fact-finding hearing or the obtaining of further evidence from third parties (school, police, local authority, GP, IDVA/ISVAs). The Judge will also identify the key issues and consider whether any interim arrangements are required.
• Stage 2: Interventions and/or Decision Hearing – The court will give careful thought to any required ‘interventions’ (e.g. requiring the parties to explore NCDR, or to attend a parenting programme or similar, making or monitoring a consent order.) If there are none, the court may hold a Decision Hearing at which it will consider all outstanding issues, hear evidence and make a final order according to the child’s best interests.  It will also consider how the court’s decision shall be communicated to the child. 

Originally, the Pathfinder pilot included a third, “Review” stage after 3-12 months from the date of the order at which the court would check how the arrangements were working in practice.  However, that stage was removed in December 2024 as a result of operational challenges and work is ongoing to develop an alternative method of post-order support.

Pathfinder in practice

It can be seen how heavily front-loaded this new process is: the Child Impact Report will usually be completed within 6-8 weeks. It is prepared before any of the parties have attended court and will include a thorough multi-agency report and assessment of the child’s wishes and feelings. 

Pathfinder’s goals are admirable in taking an early, multi-agency, trauma-informed and child-centred approach to improve efficiency and create a more supportive, less adversarial route to resolving disputes. The court has active engagement right from the start and exercises robust case-management, with a strong ongoing focus on NCDR.  However, there are undoubtedly concerns about resourcing and how to ensure the CIR does fully and proportionately capture the full extent of the, often complex, issues involved when assessing the child’s voice, wishes and feelings. 

In her recent research-backed report published on 13 October, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, referred to there being evidence of domestic abuse in 87% of files reviewed, but commented that it was frequently not taken seriously.  She has said that: “To better protect survivors and deliver the reform promised, ministers must commit to a fully funded national roll out of Pathfinder Courts and the removal of the presumption of parental contact to ensure decisions are taken in the best interest of children. The government must also provide the necessary investment to extent the pilot study conducted by my office, to allow for rigorous oversight on the changes being made and ensure accountability from within the Family Court. Tinkering around the edges will no longer suffice.”

Whilst the government announced on 22 October its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement referred to by Dame Nicole (Government announces the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement), how quickly it can commit to her second demand to roll out Pathfinder nationally will wait to be seen.  In a pre-Budget climate where public funding is clearly already extremely stretched, we shall have to wait to see how and when a commitment can be made to adopt fully a process that puts domestic abuse front and centre when important decisions are made in relation to children.

Until then, I am certainly excited about the prospect of seeing the process in action and look forward to reporting further on my experience in due course.