Recommendations & Conclusions
30 items
2
Recommendation
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Accepted
The family justice system is complex, but excessive fragmentation hinders transparency, leading to poor accountability for service improvement and overall performance. The family justice system involves many organisations across government and the independent judiciary. There is no single body accountable for overall system performance, including delivery of the statutory time …
Read more
The family justice system is complex, but excessive fragmentation hinders transparency, leading to poor accountability for service improvement and overall performance. The family justice system involves many organisations across government and the independent judiciary. There is no single body accountable for overall system performance, including delivery of the statutory time limit of 26 weeks for most public law cases. The FJB, set up to improve performance across the system, was supposed to meet quarterly but only met on average 2.5 times a year from June 2018 to December 2024 and has no overall strategy to improve family justice. The Board set six priorities for the family justice system in 2024–25 but did not monitor one of these at all. There is a lack of transparency about how, and by when, departments expect the six priorities to be delivered. Neither is there an effective mechanism to hold individual bodies to account. 3 The purpose of Local Family Justice Boards is to help improve services locally, but these local boards have no accountability, are not resourced and their performance is variable. recommendation MoJ and DfE should assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current accountability arrangements for family justice, and report back by December 2025 on how this might be improved, including: • how accountability can be strengthened across the system by consolidating current responsibilities or increasing transparent reporting; and • how both departments can better support the Family Justice Board nationally, and Local Family Justice Boards locally, to improve performance.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepted the recommendation, agreeing to assess current accountability arrangements for family justice and report back to the Committee by December 2025 with plans for improvements and better support for Family Justice Boards.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Recommendation
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Accepted
There are inefficiencies in systems and processes that worsen experiences and outcomes for children and families, making it harder to achieve best value for money. Around 32% of public law cases have at least one hearing cancelled before the hearing takes place, leading to delays and wasted resources. Not only …
Read more
There are inefficiencies in systems and processes that worsen experiences and outcomes for children and families, making it harder to achieve best value for money. Around 32% of public law cases have at least one hearing cancelled before the hearing takes place, leading to delays and wasted resources. Not only that, but current processes can lead to errors, duplication or unnecessary effort. We heard about some improvements for public law but there are still significant inefficiencies in systems and processes both for public and for private law. Many families, particularly litigants in person, find it difficult to understand what they need to do, leading to additional pressure on court resources. The average number of hearings and the number of expert reports per case have also increased in recent years. When cases are delayed it becomes more likely that family situations will change before the case concludes, leading to the need for new expert reports and court hearings. Settling cases out of court such as through mediation can be quicker, with benefits for children, but uptake of MoJ’s mediation voucher scheme has remained too low. Helping families stay together also helps improve court performance through reducing demand on the struggling court system. To that end, the Spending Review of June 2025 announced £2 billion funding for new investments in children’s social care, part of which is intended to provide better family support. recommendation MoJ and DfE should take steps to improve efficiency in family justice systems and processes by: • making a system-wide assessment of where process inefficiencies impact on performance; 4 • putting in place arrangements to learn from and embed good practice; • supporting families, in particular, litigants in person, to better navigate the system; • promoting alternative resolutions where possible; and • clarifying how the additional £2 billion of new investment in children’s social care will be spent, for example, in impro
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees to improve efficiency across the family justice system. It will outline implications of inefficiency assessments and next steps in an April 2026 strategy, commit over £6 million to support legal services and alternative resolutions, and leverage £2 billion for children's social care …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Recommendation
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Accepted
Shortages in the number of district judges and social workers are contributing to delays, and to significant regional differences in timeliness of resolving cases. There are wide variations in durations of cases; for example, in December 2024, the average duration for public law cases was 24 weeks in Wales but …
Read more
Shortages in the number of district judges and social workers are contributing to delays, and to significant regional differences in timeliness of resolving cases. There are wide variations in durations of cases; for example, in December 2024, the average duration for public law cases was 24 weeks in Wales but 53 weeks in London (for private law, it was 18 weeks and 70 weeks respectively). A major cause for particularly poor performance in London and the South East is that there are too few district judges and social workers in these areas. However, the departments have not systematically assessed what capacity would be required to meet demand at regional level. MoJ and HMCTS have attempted to increase judicial capacity over the last few years, for example by raising the retirement age and improving pension arrangements, but it remains a major ‘pinch point’ in London. HMCTS plans to recruit 80 district judges specifically for London and the South East with a view to addressing these shortages. recommendation In its Treasury Minute response MoJ, together with DfE, HMCTS and Cafcass, should clarify to the Committee: • the capacity required for family courts to meet current demand on a timely basis; and • how, and by when, family justice partners will resolve the workforce shortages in district judges and social workers, including details for locations where shortages are most acute.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation, stating it has already increased judicial capacity, assesses family court capacity annually, and expects judicial recruitment campaign outcomes by Spring 2026. It further details ongoing investments by the DfE to address social worker shortages, including increased numbers, improved retention, new …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
5
Recommendation
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Accepted
MoJ and DfE do not have the data they need to fully understand the reasons for poor performance and design well targeted improvements. There remain significant gaps in family justice data. HMCTS does not collect enough demographic information on children, and there are no data on outcomes for different user …
Read more
MoJ and DfE do not have the data they need to fully understand the reasons for poor performance and design well targeted improvements. There remain significant gaps in family justice data. HMCTS does not collect enough demographic information on children, and there are no data on outcomes for different user groups; or for the prevalence of domestic abuse in private law cases. MoJ and DfE still struggle to fully understand what are the triggers that have the most impact on case length, for example capacity constraints, or the need for expert reports, making it difficult to understand 5 where to prioritise efforts to reduce delay. Delays in cases weigh heavily on children, in particular for domestic abuse victims, but understanding of the differential impacts on different groups of service users, or what happens to children after court remains poor. It is not yet possible to follow a child from end-to-end through the family justice system, although the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill now progressing through Parliament contains a provision to introduce a single child unique identifier, which could make a material difference. In addition, not enough is known about what happens to children at the end of proceedings. A further significant data gap is that MoJ and DfE do not know how much is spent on family justice across the system, including spending by local authorities. recommendation MoJ and DfE, working with HMCTS, Cafcass and Local Authorities, in consultation with the Judiciary, should set out a joined-up data and evidence strategy over the next six months. This strategy should outline how the department will collect better data on: • most important causes of delays and inefficiencies; • tracking a child’s progress through the system from end to end; • differential outcomes for user groups; and • the ‘whole system’ costs of family justice.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation, stating Cafcass Cymru will outline plans for a joined-up data and evidence strategy in 2026-2027 to improve data sharing, address gaps, track outcomes, and understand causes of delay. This includes piloting a unique child identifier and introducing new data modules …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
6
Recommendation
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Deferred
‘Pathfinder’ pilots present an opportunity to improve private law performance, but MoJ has not yet made necessary preparations to roll the pilot out nationally. The MoJ’s ‘Pathfinder’ pilot is now rolled out across six family court areas, with plans for another four areas. Initial evaluations suggest the new model improves …
Read more
‘Pathfinder’ pilots present an opportunity to improve private law performance, but MoJ has not yet made necessary preparations to roll the pilot out nationally. The MoJ’s ‘Pathfinder’ pilot is now rolled out across six family court areas, with plans for another four areas. Initial evaluations suggest the new model improves experiences for victims of domestic abuse, and reduces average case durations. The new model prioritises earlier collection of information and reduces the number of court hearings, shifting costs away from courts towards local authorities and Cafcass. For example, Cafcass’s involvement in private law cases is expected to increase from around 30% of cases to 80% under the Pathfinder model, requiring around 200 more family court advisers. Wider roll out may therefore depend on reallocation of funding to support the necessary investment in Cafcass and local authority social work capacity. Many stakeholders consider that the new model for private law cases is a positive step. However, despite the wide support and positive evaluations, progress towards the new model is slow. MoJ has no timetable for wider adoption, nor an assessment of what funding would be required. 6 recommendation MoJ should, in conjunction with the DfE, within the next 12 months publish a plan and timeline for the wider roll out of pathfinder, including an assessment of how the model will affect spending and how it intends to reallocate funding to Cafcass and local authorities as necessary. 7 1 Reducing delays and improving outcomes for children Introduction
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation to publish a plan and timeline for the wider rollout of Pathfinder, but defers its publication until after the conclusion of departmental funding decisions through the Spending Review 2026-2027 and the approval of the business case.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Not Addressed
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Department for Education (DfE), HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) on improving family court services for children.1
Read more
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Department for Education (DfE), HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) on improving family court services for children.1
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response outlines plans for improving timeliness in family justice, developing a cross-system strategy by April 2026, and reviewing performance indicators, but this does not address the content of the committee's introductory conclusion.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
7
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Family justice faced rising demand before the COVID-19 pandemic, with public law receipts peaking in 2017 at 19,389, while private law receipts peaked in 2020 at 55,711. The backlog of cases increased by 2021 and cases were taking longer to settle.8 The number of outstanding cases remains large, but has …
Read more
Family justice faced rising demand before the COVID-19 pandemic, with public law receipts peaking in 2017 at 19,389, while private law receipts peaked in 2020 at 55,711. The backlog of cases increased by 2021 and cases were taking longer to settle.8 The number of outstanding cases remains large, but has fallen from a peak of 65,743 cases in August 2021 to 47,662 by December 2024, although MoJ recognised that there is more to do.9
Show less
HM Treasury
8
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
In 2024, the mean durations of public law and private law cases were 36 and 41 weeks respectively, significantly higher than the 27 weeks and 26 weeks on average in 2018.10 MoJ and HMCTS told us that the average duration for private and public law cases has reduced by about …
Read more
In 2024, the mean durations of public law and private law cases were 36 and 41 weeks respectively, significantly higher than the 27 weeks and 26 weeks on average in 2018.10 MoJ and HMCTS told us that the average duration for private and public law cases has reduced by about three weeks over the last year.11 MOJ stated that it hopes to be able to make similar incremental reductions within the next year.12 HMCTS explained that, in its view, these figures undersell what has been achieved, as it had prioritised older cases, the effect of which was to bring up the average age of the cases closed. The national averages do, however, conceal big regional variations in case duration, with Wales performing well but cases taking significantly longer in London and the South East.13
Show less
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
In December 2024, there were still over 4,000 children involved in public and private law proceedings which had been open for over 100 weeks.14 MoJ told us that by the end of March 2025, the number of those waiting for over 100 weeks had reduced by 48% for public law …
Read more
In December 2024, there were still over 4,000 children involved in public and private law proceedings which had been open for over 100 weeks.14 MoJ told us that by the end of March 2025, the number of those waiting for over 100 weeks had reduced by 48% for public law and 46% for private law, but did not specify compared to when. MoJ and HMCTS told us that reducing long-running cases over 100 weeks will continue to be a priority 8 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.6, 1.9, Figure 5 9 Qq 11, 13; C&AG’s Report, para 1.7 10 C&AG’s Report, para 1.9 11 Qq 12, 16 12 Q 28 13 Qq 12, 16, 20 14 Qq 13, 19; C&AG’s Report, para 1.9 10 indicator for them going forward, but they recognised there is more to do. MoJ said that in reality it will always be challenging to ensure that there are no 100-week-plus cases in the system.15
Show less
HM Treasury
10
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Since 2014, there has been a statutory requirement that most public law cases should be completed within 26 weeks, but this statutory deadline has never been met.16 There is no equivalent statutory timeline for private law. For 2024–25, four of the five priority indicators set by the FJB on improving …
Read more
Since 2014, there has been a statutory requirement that most public law cases should be completed within 26 weeks, but this statutory deadline has never been met.16 There is no equivalent statutory timeline for private law. For 2024–25, four of the five priority indicators set by the FJB on improving timeliness for family courts have not been met. MoJ and DfE described these targets as stretching, and could not say when they expect they will be achieved.17 Holding the system to account
Show less
HM Treasury
11
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Successful delivery of services requires strong accountability with clear roles and responsibilities. Responsibilities for family justice are dispersed across many organisations across government and there is no single body accountable for overall performance. Complex and fragmented funding arrangements and information flows for family justice make accountability more challenging.18 Witnesses agreed …
Read more
Successful delivery of services requires strong accountability with clear roles and responsibilities. Responsibilities for family justice are dispersed across many organisations across government and there is no single body accountable for overall performance. Complex and fragmented funding arrangements and information flows for family justice make accountability more challenging.18 Witnesses agreed that it is more challenging than if there were one simple system with a single accounting officer, but told us that nearly all the most complex problems in society involve multiple government departments, and that there was no way to make this system into one person’s responsibility. That the system is complex was the nature of the challenge, but MoJ described it and the other departments as working very hard together, with clear collective aims.19
Show less
HM Treasury
12
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
The ministerial-led FJB was established to help organisations involved in family justice work together effectively, to improve performance and hold organisations to account internally. Although it aimed to meet quarterly, this group only met on average 2.5 times per year over the period June 2018 to December 2024. Frequent turnover …
Read more
The ministerial-led FJB was established to help organisations involved in family justice work together effectively, to improve performance and hold organisations to account internally. Although it aimed to meet quarterly, this group only met on average 2.5 times per year over the period June 2018 to December 2024. Frequent turnover in ministerial chairs and consequential churn in political leadership, with each minister attending only three meetings on average, has led to frequent refocusing of FJB’s priorities.20 MoJ and DfE recognised these issues but noted that, while the FJB is the convening authority, a lot of the work is done through subgroups at official level that meet very regularly and are looking at performance, priorities and areas that are not performing well.21 15 Qq 13, 23 - 25 16 Qq 14-16; C&AG’s Report, para 1.8 17 Qq 22-28; C&AG’s Report, para 7, Figure 8 18 C&AG’s Report, paras 9, 2.1, 2.6 19 Qq 35,36, 52, 69, 76 20 Q 62; C&AG’s Report, paras 9, 2.2 21 Q 62 11
Show less
HM Treasury
13
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
There is no shared strategy for the whole system across all the departments involved. DfE told us that there is a published strategy document for children’s social care, and that the FJB has shared objectives and targets. MoJ and DfE accepted, however, that they could put more narrative and clarity …
Read more
There is no shared strategy for the whole system across all the departments involved. DfE told us that there is a published strategy document for children’s social care, and that the FJB has shared objectives and targets. MoJ and DfE accepted, however, that they could put more narrative and clarity around them, in a strategy-style document, which is not something they had done to date.22 MoJ told us that FJB has set six specific priorities, but could not confirm how, and by when, FJB expects these priorities to be delivered, nor what mechanism it would use to hold individual bodies to account for delivery of its priorities and the statutory time limit of 26 weeks applicable to most public law cases.23
Show less
HM Treasury
14
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
MoJ and DfE told us that LFJBs are a vital part of the system, bringing local partners together to focus on local problems which will not be the same in different parts of the country. LFJBs have an important role to play in improving local services, but they are non-statutory …
Read more
MoJ and DfE told us that LFJBs are a vital part of the system, bringing local partners together to focus on local problems which will not be the same in different parts of the country. LFJBs have an important role to play in improving local services, but they are non-statutory bodies, FJB does not have authority over them. They struggle, for example, with administrative resource, and their effectiveness varies. MoJ told us that it has provided support to improve LFJBs’ work, for example, through standardised terms of reference and improved guidance for LFJB chairs, more frequent meetings with LFJBs (twice a year), and better connection between FJBs and LFJBs including LFJB representatives on FJB. MoJ also told us that this year it will ask LFJBs to produce action plans that show the steps they are taking to meet the priorities set by the FJB, and that LFJBs would report back halfway through the year.24 Improving processes and supporting families
Show less
HM Treasury
15
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
We asked the witnesses what they were going to do to address a range of inefficiencies in family court processes identified by the NAO. For example, poor quality information input by applicants was causing rework and delays, although there was no collective understanding of how often this occurs. The NAO …
Read more
We asked the witnesses what they were going to do to address a range of inefficiencies in family court processes identified by the NAO. For example, poor quality information input by applicants was causing rework and delays, although there was no collective understanding of how often this occurs. The NAO also identified that administrative processes resulted in multiple errors, duplication or unnecessary effort, and difficulty in making simple fixes. A lack of confirmed quality requirements were also leading to variation in the quality of information.25 HMCTS acknowledged that it could be more efficient and more productive across the system. It told us that the administration of public law cases has become more efficient through digitisation in recent years, reducing time spent by court staff preparing a case for a hearing from 25 hours to five hours. It also told 22 Qq 59-61 23 Qq 14-16, 22-28 24 Qq 63-64; C&AG’s Report, para 11 25 Q 40; C&AG’s Report, para 3.6 12 us that 98% of local authorities now upload documents digitally, reporting that this gives them a 50% efficiency saving. HMCTS told us that it is piloting similar systems for private law, which is a much bigger number of cases. It is finding digitising the system hard but as it rolls out the new system over the next year it expects a big productivity gain.26
Show less
HM Treasury
16
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
In public law, 32% of cases had at least one hearing cancelled on the day, which contributes to delays.27 HMCTS told us that the main reason cases are cancelled or adjourned, in over 25% of cases, is non-compliance with what the judge has ordered parties to do. Sometimes this is …
Read more
In public law, 32% of cases had at least one hearing cancelled on the day, which contributes to delays.27 HMCTS told us that the main reason cases are cancelled or adjourned, in over 25% of cases, is non-compliance with what the judge has ordered parties to do. Sometimes this is about staff capacity; for example, the capacity of social workers to be able to produce reports on time. Another reason cases are adjourned is that an updated report is needed because of changed family circumstances, because the case has languished in the system too long.28 The practice direction for family courts, setting out the legislative framework, recommends that most public law cases should have two to three hearings but the average is five hearings, with 20% of cases having eight or more hearings. In addition, the number of expert assessments, which each take up to six weeks to be compiled, increased from 2.4 reports per case in January 2023 to 3.3 in December 2024.29 HMCTS stressed that it was seeking to make processes more efficient, to the extent that they were under its control but that HMCTS is not, for example, entirely in control of how many hearings there are per case. That requires every agency to work in line with the judge’s directions. HMCTS but assured us, however, that massive reform was coming.30
Show less
HM Treasury
17
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
The proportion of cases where neither party was represented in family courts was 39% in 2024, three times that in 2013.31 Many stakeholders who provided written submissions told us that people going through legal disputes without legal representation (litigants in person), often feel overwhelmed by the family court process, including …
Read more
The proportion of cases where neither party was represented in family courts was 39% in 2024, three times that in 2013.31 Many stakeholders who provided written submissions told us that people going through legal disputes without legal representation (litigants in person), often feel overwhelmed by the family court process, including the paperwork and the rules. They also told us that when people represent themselves, judges and court staff often have to spend additional time to support them, and hearings often take longer.32 MoJ noted that there is no evidence that litigants in person increase delays, and that the longest cases are those in which both applicants are represented.33 However, evidence from the Bar Council was that available data on litigants in person are poor, covering both cases with active and inactive litigants, painting an inaccurate picture 26 Qq 40-41 27 C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 28 Q 43 29 C&AG’s Report, para 14 30 Q 41 31 C&AG’s Report, para 14 32 IFC0022, IFC0055, IFC0068, IFC0075, IFC0091, IFC0108 33 Q 49 13 of their impact on how long cases take.34 MoJ told us that it is doing a lot to support litigants in person, including providing over £6 million of funding this year to 60 organisations to improve advice available for them.35
Show less
HM Treasury
18
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Keeping cases out of the courts, where possible, can be less contentious and lead to quicker settlements, saving money and benefiting children.36 Both MoJ and DfE are taking measures to keep more cases out of court that do not need to be there, such as through family group decision- making …
Read more
Keeping cases out of the courts, where possible, can be less contentious and lead to quicker settlements, saving money and benefiting children.36 Both MoJ and DfE are taking measures to keep more cases out of court that do not need to be there, such as through family group decision- making meetings and through mediation.37 Since 2021, MoJ has introduced a mediation voucher scheme, providing £500 per family towards their mediation costs. MoJ agreed that mediation is a useful part of the system. It told us take-up of the voucher scheme has increased year on year and, since it started, over 40,000 families have accessed the vouchers.38 However, only around 35% of private law families attended a Mediation Information Assessment Meeting (MIAM) and this proportion has not increased since the mediation vouchers were introduced.39
Show less
HM Treasury
19
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
DfE told us its major contribution to the overall system is to reduce the flow of cases to family courts. It told us that successive governments have under-invested in children’s social care but the Spending Review in June this year announced over £2 billion of new investment in Children’s social …
Read more
DfE told us its major contribution to the overall system is to reduce the flow of cases to family courts. It told us that successive governments have under-invested in children’s social care but the Spending Review in June this year announced over £2 billion of new investment in Children’s social care. This could help provide better family support “so that more and more children can stay safety with their families and do not ever go into the family court system”.40 34 IFC0091 35 Q 49 36 Qq 44, 47; IFC0074, IFC0079, IFC0091 37 Qq 26, 35, 46, 48; C&AG’s Report, paras 3.8-3.11 38 Q 44; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 39 C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 40 Q 26 14 2 Taking a whole system approach to overcome barriers and improve family justice Tackling shortages in district judges and social workers
Show less
HM Treasury
20
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
In some regions, particularly London, children have to wait much longer than in other areas to have their cases concluded.41 In December 2024, the average duration for public law cases was 24 weeks in Wales but 53 weeks in London; and for private law, it was 18 weeks for Wales …
Read more
In some regions, particularly London, children have to wait much longer than in other areas to have their cases concluded.41 In December 2024, the average duration for public law cases was 24 weeks in Wales but 53 weeks in London; and for private law, it was 18 weeks for Wales and 70 weeks for London.42 Family courts in London also tend to process fewer cases a day than many other areas.43
Show less
HM Treasury
21
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
MoJ and HMCTS told us that cases can take longer in London partly because there are more complicated cases, often with international dimensions. There is also a complicated administrative landscape with 33 different local authorities all doing things differently.44 HMCTS and Cafcass added that shortages in district judges and social …
Read more
MoJ and HMCTS told us that cases can take longer in London partly because there are more complicated cases, often with international dimensions. There is also a complicated administrative landscape with 33 different local authorities all doing things differently.44 HMCTS and Cafcass added that shortages in district judges and social workers, especially in London and the Southeast, are particular pinch points.45
Show less
HM Treasury
22
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
The capacity required to manage the caseload efficiently on a timely basis, both at a national level, and in each part of the country, has not been set out.46 MoJ argued that there is more than enough capacity in the system overall to meet demand, on the grounds that backlogs …
Read more
The capacity required to manage the caseload efficiently on a timely basis, both at a national level, and in each part of the country, has not been set out.46 MoJ argued that there is more than enough capacity in the system overall to meet demand, on the grounds that backlogs are reducing.47 However HMCTS has taken some measures to help increase capacity. For example, it has sought to increase the number of district judges 41 Qq 12, 16, 29 42 C&AG’s Report, para 1.10 43 Q 29; C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 44 Q 29 45 Qq 12, 15, 20, 31 46 Qq 17-18; C&AG’s Report, para 1.7 47 Qq 18-19 15 over the last few years, through raising the retirement age and improving pension arrangements. HMCTS has a current drive to recruit up to 80 district judges specifically for London and the South East.48 DfE told us that, although shortages in social workers still contribute to delays in the family justice system, the number of social workers is moving in the right direction. It noted that there were 34,300 social workers as of September 2024, 3.7% up on last year; and the average of just over 15 cases per full- time local authority social worker is 2.3 fewer than in 2017.49 Improving data and analysis for family justice services
Show less
HM Treasury
23
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
An overall assessment of the drivers of performance is important to support the system to focus on areas most likely to secure improvements. A whole-system approach is needed to deliver outcomes no individual body can achieve alone.50 MoJ told us that capacity, demand, case complexity and productivity all drive the …
Read more
An overall assessment of the drivers of performance is important to support the system to focus on areas most likely to secure improvements. A whole-system approach is needed to deliver outcomes no individual body can achieve alone.50 MoJ told us that capacity, demand, case complexity and productivity all drive the backlogs.51 But no overall assessment has yet been made of the importance of different factors contributing to delays, and how they are going to be put right, making it difficult to understand where to prioritise efforts to reduce delay.52 MoJ and DfE told us that they have a shared view of the causes of delay but thought there was more to do on data and evidence.53 Cafcass suggested it would be helpful to convene all bodies to discuss the main five or six real triggers for delays.54 The way data and evidence are currently collected and published does not allow the departments to break causes down easily to distinguish specific factors and what could be done to address them.55
Show less
HM Treasury
24
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
There are significant gaps in family justice data. These data gaps include, for example, demographic information on children and their families; data on outcomes for children; and data on the prevalence of domestic abuse in private law cases.56 There are also issues with the quality of family courts data collected. …
Read more
There are significant gaps in family justice data. These data gaps include, for example, demographic information on children and their families; data on outcomes for children; and data on the prevalence of domestic abuse in private law cases.56 There are also issues with the quality of family courts data collected. In 2024, HMCTS reviewed approximately 2,000 private law cases that had been open for over 85–90 weeks and found 30% of them had exited the court process and needed to be closed.57 48 Qq 12, 20; C&AG’s Report, para 3.13 49 Q 26 50 Qq 38, 69; C&AG’s Report, para 3.2 51 Q 11 52 Qq 33-35; C&AG’s Report, paras 15, 3.2-3.3 53 Qq 34-35 54 Q 37 55 Qq 33-35 56 Qq 39, 64; C&AG’s Report, para 2.14; IFC0024; IFC0036 57 Q 39; C&AG’s Report, para 2.14 16
Show less
HM Treasury
25
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
We asked MoJ and DfE why the system was not working as well as it should, given that better data sharing should allow improvements, and whether this was evidence of complacency.58 Delays in cases weigh heavily on children, in particular, domestic abuse victims.59 Gaps in the data mean that MoJ …
Read more
We asked MoJ and DfE why the system was not working as well as it should, given that better data sharing should allow improvements, and whether this was evidence of complacency.58 Delays in cases weigh heavily on children, in particular, domestic abuse victims.59 Gaps in the data mean that MoJ and DfE do not have good information on how the service is impacting on different groups of service users, what happens to children at the end of proceedings or outcomes for them after that, particularly for survivors of domestic abuse.60 Different organisations in the system collect data differently. There is no common identifier across the system, for example, to link data sets and follow a child from end-to-end through the family justice system. Many of the limitations in the data are long-standing and well understood, but there is not a joined-up plan to improve how data are collected and analysed. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains a provision to introduce for the first time a unique child identifier for data by local authorities. DfE told us that the unique identifier is a “material difference” that will enable tracking a child’s journey through the system although, if passed, that will still take time to implement.61
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges delays, data gaps, and differing data collection methods, and the potential of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
MoJ told us that there are separate accounting officers for each part of the system, and that each could account for the costs for which they were responsible.62 MoJ accepted, however, that they did not know the cost of the family justice system in totality, including spending by local authorities.63 …
Read more
MoJ told us that there are separate accounting officers for each part of the system, and that each could account for the costs for which they were responsible.62 MoJ accepted, however, that they did not know the cost of the family justice system in totality, including spending by local authorities.63 Local authorities, which incur substantial costs before and during care proceedings, do not report their spending on family-justice-related services separately from overall spending on family support and children’s social care.64 MoJ told us that the system as a whole is inherently complex, involving multiple departments, at a national and local level, and that for some parts it is very difficult to isolate a single figure.It cited as an example the systems for public and private law cases that share some resources with the aim of getting best value.65 The ‘Pathfinder’ pilot scheme
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges the MoJ's statement about separate accounting officers and the lack of knowledge regarding the total cost of the family justice system, including local authority spending.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
27
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Not Addressed
MoJ told us that it has been piloting a new model for private law through the ‘Pathfinder’ scheme, the aim of which was to improve experience for victims of domestic abuse by taking a whole system approach to improving services. Key features of the initiative include: 58 Q 39 59 …
Read more
MoJ told us that it has been piloting a new model for private law through the ‘Pathfinder’ scheme, the aim of which was to improve experience for victims of domestic abuse by taking a whole system approach to improving services. Key features of the initiative include: 58 Q 39 59 Qq 9, 13, 68; C&AG’s Report, para 8 60 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.14-2.15, 3.15 61 Qq 39,68; C&AG’s Report, paras 2.11, 2.16 62 Q 69 63 Qq 70-71; C&AG’s Report, para 2.19 64 C&AG’s Report, para 2.19 65 Qq 67-70 17 funding for independent advisers to support domestic abuse victims; case progression officers to help people navigate the system (particularly litigants in person); and Cafcass, working with Local Authorities, centring on children’s views and experiences by engaging with children and collecting information much earlier in the process.66 Initial evaluations of early pilots suggest that the new model improves experiences for victims of domestic abuse and reduces average case durations.67 Many stakeholders who submitted written evidence supported the new model and its further rollout.68
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government response contains no relevant content.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
28
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
The new model reduces the number of court hearings and redistributes costs across the system.69 Evaluations from the two early pilots found that costs for local authorities more than doubled as social workers were involved in more cases, while the judicial cost halved due to a reduced number of hearings.70 …
Read more
The new model reduces the number of court hearings and redistributes costs across the system.69 Evaluations from the two early pilots found that costs for local authorities more than doubled as social workers were involved in more cases, while the judicial cost halved due to a reduced number of hearings.70 Cafcass told us that its involvement in private law cases can be expected to increase from around 30% of cases to 80% under the Pathfinder model. It said that achieving this across the country would require around 200 more family court advisers. Wider roll out may therefore depend on reallocation of funding to support the necessary investment in Cafcass and local authority social workers.71
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges the cost redistribution of the new model and the need for reallocation of funding to support Cafcass and local authority social workers.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
29
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Acknowledged
MoJ told us that progress with improving timeliness for private law, including in London, will depend on the speed with which it rolls out the Pathfinder model.72 However, despite positive evaluations, wide stakeholder support, and the potential to improve timeliness, progress in rolling out the new model is slow. Pathfinder …
Read more
MoJ told us that progress with improving timeliness for private law, including in London, will depend on the speed with which it rolls out the Pathfinder model.72 However, despite positive evaluations, wide stakeholder support, and the potential to improve timeliness, progress in rolling out the new model is slow. Pathfinder pilots have been rolled out across six family court areas and MoJ has plans to roll it out to another four areas by the end of this financial year. MoJ told us it has an ambition to go “as far and as fast as we can”, depending on the funding it receives because some initial investments and a realignment of resources are required. Roll out also requires a lot of preparatory work, which takes time. Backlogs have first to be reduced and the right staff, particularly in social work, have to be recruited.73 Cafcass added that it would find it difficult to recruit the number of social workers needed for the new model in London.74 66 Qq 10, 21, 49, 50; C&AG’s Report, Appendix Two 67 Qq 16, 50; C&AG’s Report, para 3.14 68 IFC0027; IFC0029; IFC0067; IFC0068; IFC0069; IFC0079; IFC0091; IFC0108 69 Qq 41,50, 52,71-73 70 C&AG’s Report, para 2.20 71 Qq 50, 58; C&AG’s Report, paras 17, 2.20, 3.14 72 Qq 28, 30 73 Qq 30-31, 50-52, 54, 58 74 Q 31 18
Show less
Government response AI summary
Acknowledges the progress of the Pathfinder model roll-out depends on funding and preparatory work.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
30
Conclusion
45th Report - Improving family court se…
Not Addressed
MoJ has not set out a plan for its wider adoption, including assessment of what funding will be required, how it is going to work with partners to ensure that resources are available and realigned, or setting a timetable. MoJ told us that it would now develop a plan for …
Read more
MoJ has not set out a plan for its wider adoption, including assessment of what funding will be required, how it is going to work with partners to ensure that resources are available and realigned, or setting a timetable. MoJ told us that it would now develop a plan for phased rollout.75 75 Qq 53-58 19
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government response contains no relevant content.
Read full response →
HM Treasury