Case Summary: Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216

By Tim Parker KC

The President of the Family Division handed down judgment on 29^th September 2026 the decision in the first appeal following the introduction of Child-Focused Courts pilot. In Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216 Cobb P gave guidance on the model in the first half of the judgment at paragraphs 9–51 before dealing with the specifics of the appeal. The following are key notes for practitioners:

• First appeal under the CFC model. The model started in 2022 as the “Pathfinder” pilot and was designed to implement the 2020 Harm Panel Report and the Private Law Working Group report. It aims to capture the child’s voice, address the “pro-contact” culture, and replace the adversarial approach with a more investigative one. It now runs in ten court centres, including the whole of Wales, and is expected to cover all private law cases by early 2029.
• Key stages. After initial gatekeeping, the process has two stages: information gathering, and then interventions and/or a Decision Hearing. In most cases a Child Impact Report (CIR) will be ordered, ordinarily filed within eight weeks. At the Decision Hearing, judges are expected to take a trauma-informed, problem-solving approach, and an IDVA may support an alleged victim-survivor.
• Same rules still apply. All the usual welfare principles, the overriding objective and the rest of the FPR 2010 apply in CFC cases. PD12J is expressly incorporated, with amendments that require the court to identify the key factual issues in dispute, taking into account the CIR.
• PD12J not diluted. The CFC model “does not in any respect undercut or dilute” PD12J, which must be applied “with the same care and rigour as at present”. Where domestic abuse is proved but contact is ordered, the court must explain why the order will not expose the child to risk of harm and benefits the child (PD12J, paragraph 40). Re H-N [2022] 1 WLR 2681 (‘Re H-N’) and Re K [2022] 1 WLR 3713 (‘Re K’) apply with similar force, as does the focus on patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour (F v M) [2021] EWFC 4)
• Fact-finding: necessity is the test. A fact-finding hearing is “not an end in itself”. Even very serious allegations may not need to be tried if they will not affect the welfare outcome. The question is whether findings would materially affect the assessment of future risk and the arrangements for the child. Where fact-finding is necessary, only the allegations that underpin the welfare decision should be determined. The court repeated the key passages from Re K and A v K on proportionality and case management.
• Firm control of evidence. Fact-finding can, and now should, be investigative. Before oral evidence is called, judges should examine with the parties what real contribution it is likely to make. Parties are not entitled to unlimited time. The principal parties’ evidence will ordinarily carry more weight than that of supporting witnesses. The trial judge was “entirely correct” to impose strict limits on oral evidence.
• Rights of Women’s submissions. Rights of Women argued that the procedure has changed but the underlying law has not. It urged caution where decisions are made on paper at an early stage. It also warned against treating minimising admissions as a sufficient factual basis, and against “high conflict” language that obscures abuse. Its other points were that abuse often continues after separation, that parental responsibility can be used as a tool of control, and that speed is not an end in itself.
• Cafcass’s submissions. Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru asked for guidance on four issues: when fact-finding is necessary, risk assessment where allegations are undetermined, ongoing abuse, and perpetrator programmes. They argued that Family Court Advisers must be able to record and analyse allegations that have not been determined. They said allegations of ongoing abuse should ordinarily be decided before allegations of breach. They also argued that anger-management courses are not reliable evidence that abusive or coercive behaviour has been addressed.
• Four principles. The President set out four principles:
• The CFC model is a real change of procedure and culture.
• The substantive law is unchanged.
• Necessity is “the touchstone” for fact-finding.
• Investigation does not reduce the need for procedural fairness or robust case management.

Judges should ask at the outset: “What is this case really about? What issues are agreed? What is actually in dispute?”. For example, if the dispute is about how much contact there should be rather than whether there should be contact at all, fact-finding is less likely to be needed. The court also accepted that judges should satisfy themselves that any agreement is genuine and informed.

• No further guidance; Cafcass Pathway to be reviewed. The court declined to give the guidance Cafcass asked for, because it had heard no argument on those issues. It pointed instead to Re D (Change of Circumstances: Domestic Abuse) [2026] EWCA Civ 969. Re D held that it is procedurally unfair to decide welfare on a section 7 report whose recommendations assume that allegations with no findings are true. Cafcass was encouraged to revise its Practice Pathway and Domestic Abuse Practice Policy in light of that decision. The appeal was not about the merits of the CFC model itself.