SMB involved in first judgment given in the Court of Appeal concerning the Child Focused Courts/ Pathfinder Scheme

Sarah Harding and Charlie Geyton of SMB, together with Jennifer Perrins KC and Imogen Lloyd-Thomas of 1 King’s Bench Walk, represented the mother in the first case dealt with by the Court of Appeal involving the Child Focused Courts (“CFCs”; previously known as the Pathfinder Scheme).

We acted for the mother in the case which concerns prolonged abuse by the father towards the mother and their four children. Issues continued despite a final consent order made in a first set of proceedings in October 2024. By that order, the father’s time with the children was to remain supervised. In April 2026, the court dealt with the parties’ cross-applications in relation to child arrangements, in a second set of proceedings within the CFC procedure. The mother had initially proposed professionally supervised contact, but by the final hearing, her position aligned with the recommendation of the Child Impact Report that there should be only indirect contact.

It is the first case within the CFC model to be heard by the Court of Appeal, and the president has provided guidance as to the application of the CFC model in cases concerning domestic abuse, the circumstances in which fact-finding hearings are necessary, and how such should be considered within the CFC framework.

Within the appeal, the mother argued that the judge at first instance had erred in a number of ways. She said that the hearing below had been procedurally flawed, and that the judge had wrongly applied the CFC model as requiring a short hearing with limited oral evidence and no factual findings. The mother said she was unable to fully pursue her case regarding domestic abuse, and that the judge failed to have regard to ongoing issues of harm and risk, leading to an unsafe order which was not in line with the Child Impact Report recommendations.

The Court of Appeal accepted that there was a relevant background of domestic abuse. However, in their view the trial judge had properly applied the relevant law, including FPR PD12J, and the hearing had not been procedurally unfair. The judge had been entitled to make an order for limited supervised contact subject to conditions and other safeguards.

The court did allow the appeal in relation to a s 91 (14) order made against the mother as well as the father, with the Court of Appeal holding that the mother’s behaviour could not be compared to that of the father.

This is a timely judgment as the government announced in March 2026 that all family courts in England and Wales will be moving to the CFC Scheme, which should be completed by 2029.

Rights of Women intervened in the case and were represented by Barbara Mills KC and Charlotte Baker of 4 Paper Buildings, (instructed by Jenny Beck KC and Rebecca Pantenelli of Beck Fitzgerald). CAFCASS England/CAFCASS Cymru also intervened and were represented by Louise MacLynn KC and Edward Flood of 1 Garden Court Chambers.

Click here for a copy of the Judgment in full.

If you or someone you know need assistance with childcare arrangements, orders to protect against domestic abuse, or the new Child Focussed Courts model, you can contact our Family Team for experienced advice and guidance.