Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.

As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.

Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.

In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Cafcass does not record structured data in its case management system to enable the identification of the proportion of private-law children's cases in which a recommendation was made to pause or restrict a father’s contact following an allegation of domestic abuse prior to the completion of fact-finding proceedings. This information is not recorded centrally, and the data would only be available from individual case file review at a disproportionate cost.

The Cafcass safeguarding and domestic abuse policies are clear that where existing contact arrangements are considered unsafe for children, advice will be given to the court that the contact ceases whilst an assessment of harm and risk of further harm is considered as part of the safeguarding and/or work after the first hearing.

Child Focused Courts introduce a streamlined, problem-solving approach in relevant private law proceedings that ensures early identification of needs and risks, enabling the court to make safe decisions without delay. Under the model, the proportion of children seen by social workers more than doubles and parents who are victims of domestic abuse are able to access additional support through Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (IDVAs). Communication with families can improve their understanding of, and engagement in, the court process and the Child Impact Report provides an opportunity for parents and parties to share their views on the recommendations made to the court.

Key metrics from existing pilot areas show backlogs have reduced by more than fifty percent and cases are being resolved up to seven and a half months faster, thereby reducing delays and improving outcomes for children and families. Nationally, information on open caseload and average case duration is routinely published through Family Court Statistics and HMCTS management information. In addition, we have published additional management information demonstrating the effectiveness of the Child Focused Courts and have also published a process evaluation and a research report exploring the experience of children and families.

Following the announcement of national rollout, a phased approach will see the model operating across the whole of England and Wales by 2029. Launch dates in court areas beyond those already announced will be agreed with operational partners in due course.

The funding announced in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Statement of 17 March includes a permanent increase in social worker capacity for Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru, in recognition of the additional resources required to deliver the model, and for new domestic abuse specialists to work in the family courts.

During the implementation period, we are providing funding for additional court staff to support preparation activity, such as reducing outstanding legacy cases, and to support transition to the new model. The evaluation of the pilot areas shows that cases are being resolved earlier and the number of open cases is decreasing, indicating that the model uses existing court capacity more efficiently and that no additional judicial, magistrates, or court staff will be needed once the model is fully implemented in a court area. Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial College, which operates independently from the Government.

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.

The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.

If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.

The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.

If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration when making decisions in relation to a child's upbringing.

This Government is committed to reform of the family court to improve the experience and outcomes for children and families. Central to this is the expansion of the private law Pathfinder model, which amplifies the voice of the child through a Child Impact Report and ensures a higher proportion of children are directly engaged by social workers during proceedings. The model is supporting the court in making safe decisions which prioritise the best interests of the child, without delay.

The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and is now operating across 10 court in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of relevant private law proceedings. Plans for further expansion will be announced in due course.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.

Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.

There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.

Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.

Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.

The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

This Government is committed to protecting children from harm. The Children Act 1989 sets out specific duties for local authorities to provide services to children in their area if they are in need and to undertake enquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.

Under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989, police may only facilitate a change in a child’s place of residence despite the refusal of a parent with parental responsibility if a child is at immediate risk of significant harm, by exercising Police Protection Powers. In this case, police may only remove a child or keep a child in a safe place for a maximum 72 hours before requiring a court authorisation to sustain the separation from their parent with parental responsibility.

There are already clear expectations that the local authority brings the matter before the family court within the 72-hour time limit, ensuring judicial oversight of continued change in a child’s place of residence.

Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities can also change a child’s place of residence with the consent of all people that hold parental responsibility for that child.

Whether an application is made prior to or after a child's change of residence, the Government recognises that involvement in family court proceedings, including when children are moved for safeguarding purposes, can be a distressing experience for the families involved. That is why the Department for Education has funded research, conducted by Birkbeck university, into the experiences of parents, children and special guardians involved in public law family court proceedings, as well as a policy and literature review of advice and information materials available to parties. The report setting out their findings and recommendations can be found here: https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/56714/.

The Government welcomes this report and takes the experiences of children and families in the family court system seriously.

This Government was elected with a landmark mission: to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. The ‘Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy’ sets out stronger perpetrator management, including the commitment to nationally rollout Domestic Abuse Protection Orders across all police forces in England and Wales, which is critical in meeting this government ambition.

The Probation Service robustly manages offenders released from custody with a range of tools in the community and can respond to any breaches of licence with recall to prison where appropriate. The Sentencing Bill strengthens this by giving new powers to Probation to prohibit offenders from driving, attending public events and entering pubs, clubs and bars. It also introduces restriction zones, which will limit the movements of serious sexual and violent offenders to a specific geographical area, where appropriate, giving victims the peace of mind they deserve.

Further, regarding Electronic Monitoring (EM), the Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on Licence (DAPOL) pilot operates across eight probation regions, allowing Probation Practitioners to impose electronically monitored licence conditions on eligible prison leavers at the point of release from custody where necessary and proportionate. Conditions may include curfews, exclusion zones, required attendance at specified appointments, and GPS trail monitoring, with multiple applied risk assessments support it. DAPOL can also run alongside Alcohol Monitoring on Licence (AML) where alcohol misuse is linked to risk. Evaluation findings indicate that DAPOL provides reassurance to victims, with Victim Liaison Officers reporting that the ability to evidence breaches quickly helps reduce victim anxiety and strengthens confidence in the justice system.

The Government shares concerns that existing protections for cohabiting couples are limited and the weakness of these protections can disproportionately affect women, children and the vulnerable. The Government considers this to be an issue that affects communities across England and Wales, including in rural constituencies like West Dorset.

Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance. That is why the Government committed in its manifesto to strengthen rights and protections for cohabiting couples. We will be launching a public consultation by Spring next year to explore how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights, while maintaining marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government shares concerns that existing protections for cohabiting couples are limited and the weakness of these protections can disproportionately affect women, children and the vulnerable. The Government considers this to be an issue that affects communities across England and Wales, including in rural constituencies like West Dorset.

Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance. That is why the Government committed in its manifesto to strengthen rights and protections for cohabiting couples. We will be launching a public consultation by Spring next year to explore how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights, while maintaining marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government shares concerns that existing protections for cohabiting couples are limited and the weakness of these protections can disproportionately affect women, children and the vulnerable. The Government considers this to be an issue that affects communities across England and Wales, including in rural constituencies like West Dorset.

Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance. That is why the Government committed in its manifesto to strengthen rights and protections for cohabiting couples. We will be launching a public consultation by Spring next year to explore how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights, while maintaining marriage as one of our most important institutions.

A wide range of safeguards are available in legislation to hold executors accountable for the performance of their duties in administering the estate of a deceased person. Protections for beneficiaries if executors are incapable of fulfilling their duties or abuse their positions include:

• Renunciation – an executor is able to renounce their office if they find the role too difficult or their health is too poor, work commitments too great or it is impractical (for example they live abroad).
• Capacity – a person who lacks mental capacity to act as an executor cannot do so while such incapacity lasts.
• Passing over – Section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 empowers courts to pass over an executor where it is considered necessary or expedient and appoint an administrator.
• Citation to accept or renounce a grant – the courts can summon an executor where they have failed to act to apply for probate or renounce their office and if they do not appear their rights as an executor cease.
• Citation to take probate – an application to court where an executor has taken some steps without formalising their role.
• Inventory and Accounts – an application can be made by a beneficiary to the court to require an executor to provide an inventory and account of their administration of an estate.
• Removal – applications can be made under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to remove and replace an executor after probate where there are grounds to do so.
• Fraud – allegations of executors committing criminal offences such as fraud can be investigated by the police.

Given the wide range of safeguards, and the checks and balances the legislation provides (given the challenges faced by and onerous duty imposed on executors) the Government has no plans to reform the current mechanisms for holding executors and other personal representatives to account.

Attorneys appointed under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) are chosen by the donor themselves, reflecting their trust and personal decision about who should act on their behalf. The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) ensures the LPA is valid before registering it and can investigate concerns raised with them about an attorney’s conduct. However, the OPG does not have statutory powers to proactively monitor attorneys where no concerns have been reported.

There are also important safeguards built into the LPA process, such as the certificate provider who plays a key role in confirming that the donor understands the arrangement and is not under undue pressure. There is also a statutory waiting period prior to registration, to allow for objections against registration to be raised. These measures, alongside the donor’s choice of attorney, provide a level of security within the current framework.

Looking forward, the OPG and the Ministry of Justice are progressing a modernisation project that aims to increase safeguards and improve access to LPAs, which will be achieved by introducing a digital channel to make and register an LPA, while improving the existing paper channel. This will make LPAs easier to understand, and break down barriers to starting an LPA.

The Ministry of Justice and its partners are delivering a package of reforms aimed at improving how the family justice system supports children and families – including victims of domestic abuse.

As part of this work we have already taken forward many of the actions it committed to following the Harm Panel report. This includes expanding the Pathfinder model which aims to improve the experience of children and families involved in private law proceedings. Through delivery of Pathfinder in ten court areas, we are learning a significant amount about how the family courts can operate in line with the principles for reform set out in the Harm Panel report. We are carefully monitoring these lessons ahead of further expansion. Alongside this, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent report on the Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism pilot has made further recommendations, which the Government is now considering.

In addition, following the recommendations of the Harm Panel report, we have completed a review of the presumption of parental involvement. The evidence from the review suggests that the presumption may feed into a pro-contact culture in the family courts, finding a high incidence of court-ordered contact between children and parents who have caused or posed a risk of harm. As part of our wider package of family court reforms, the Government announced on 22 October 2025 that we will repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when Parliamentary time allows.

The Government will also be publishing our new, cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy as soon as possible, which will set out the strategic direction and concrete actions to deliver on the Government’s ambition to tackle violence against women and girls.

The Government therefore does not consider it necessary to establish an alternative inquiry at this time.

This Government has been clear – child safety during court-ordered contact is vital.

The recently published review of court’s application of the presumption of parental involvement found a high incidence of ordered contact. In some instances, this could have negative implications for children.

That is why this Government plans to repeal the presumption from the Children Act 1989. This will be part of a package of reforms to the family courts – including the further expansion of the Pathfinder model.

Thanks to incredible campaigners on the Labour Benches, the Victims and Courts Bill protects children by putting important restrictions on parental responsibility following certain serious sexual offences. One of my constituents is a fierce campaigner for services and safety measures for children whose parent has committed a sexual offence against a child outside the family home. Children in the home are victims even though they were not directly abused. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all children of child sex offenders are offered better protection and support?

I have been contacted by a Surrey Heath resident who has not just endured and survived appalling domestic abuse but is now enduring and attempting to survive the family court process, with multiple hearings over child contact arrangements. Will the Minister commit today to implementing the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent recommendations to better protect children at risk?

The Government has announced that it will repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when Parliamentary time allows.

We are committed to ensuring that the child’s welfare remains at the heart of the courts’ decision-making, and that each case considers the individual child and their family circumstances. Courts will continue to make decisions in line with the remaining provisions in the Children Act, the Human Rights Act 1998, ECHR considerations, and caselaw, with the child’s welfare remaining the paramount consideration.

The measure to repeal the presumption forms a key part of broader family court reforms, which include the expansion of the Pathfinder courts. These reforms aim to ensure that any decisions centre the child’s welfare and are based on a robust assessment of potential risks.

Alongside this announcement, we have published the Review of the Presumption of Parental Involvement and the accompanying reports from the three commissioned research projects.

The welfare of children is the paramount concern in family proceedings.

Established multi-agency safeguarding arrangements are in place to ensure that children are protected swiftly and effectively in both public and private family proceedings. Where needed, there are clear referral routes for communicating cases to Local Authorities. These procedures ensure that concerns about the immediate welfare of children are identified and escalated promptly with the appropriate agencies.

This government is delivering a package of reform to the family courts to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded and supported. This includes the expansion of the Pathfinder programme, which promotes child safeguarding through early multi-agency collaboration, expert domestic abuse support, and greater emphasis on the voice of the child.

The Children Act 1989 requires the court to have the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration when making a decision about the child’s upbringing. Any decisions the family courts make about the future arrangements for children are based on this fundamental principle.

This Government is delivering a package of reform to the family courts to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded and supported. This includes the expansion of the Pathfinder programme, which promotes child safeguarding through early multi-agency collaboration, expert domestic abuse support, and greater emphasis on the voice of the child.

This Government also recognises the significant impact that delays in court proceedings can have on children and families. That is why it is working to reduce backlogs and improve timeliness, so that children can access the support and stability they need without unnecessary delay. This includes the agreement of system-wide targets by the Family Justice Board for 2025/26, with a continued focus on tackling delay and reducing outstanding caseloads. In public law proceedings relating to children (such as care proceedings), this involves a renewed emphasis on the procedure set out in the Public Law Outline; and in private law proceedings relating to children (such as applications for child arrangements orders), areas delivering the Pathfinder model have made significant progress in addressing delays.

We are also working closely with the Department for Education to support the delivery of their reforms to children’s social care, underpinned by measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

The Government will share further plans for reform in due course.