Re C: Child Focused Courts Upheld

The Court of Appeal has considered the new Child Focused Court model for the first time in Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216.

The judgment confirms an important point for parents and practitioners: the model changes the way private children cases are managed, but it does not reduce the safeguards that apply where domestic abuse is alleged or established.

The official Judiciary record dates the judgment 29 September 2026, although the decision has been reported and discussed in the 1 October 2026 legal-news cycle. It is the first appellate authority on the Child Focused Court model in private children disputes.

This is our second article on the subject. Our earlier guide, Child Focused Courts: What Parents Must Know, explains the model itself, including the Child Impact Report and changes concerning expert evidence. This article focuses on what the Court of Appeal has now said about domestic abuse, fact-finding and contact.

Important: This article provides general information about family law in England and Wales. It is not legal advice. The correct approach depends on the evidence and circumstances of each case.

What happened in Re C?

The case concerned four children and their separated parents. The mother alleged, and the father admitted a number of instances of, domestic abuse and harmful behaviour during and after the relationship. The admitted conduct included controlling behaviour, social isolation, physical and emotional mistreatment, unsafe supervision and inappropriate conduct after separation.

The children lived with their mother. The father had contact with them under supervision, initially involving a family friend. Later proceedings considered whether contact should continue, whether it should be professionally supervised and whether other restrictions were necessary.

The first-instance judge ordered limited supervised contact. The order provided, among other things, for:

• contact once every two weeks during term time;
• longer or additional contact during some school holidays;
• supervision by a named family friend;
• Cafcass briefing for the supervisor about the risks;
• no telephone contact; and
• restrictions on activities such as wild swimming and canoeing unless a professional lifeguard was present.

The mother appealed, arguing that the judge had failed to deal properly with the history of domestic abuse, had limited the evidence too much and had made an unsafe order for contact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in relation to the child arrangements order. It allowed the appeal in relation to the section 91(14) order insofar as it restricted the mother from making future applications. The majority of the appeal was therefore dismissed, but the decision was not an unqualified endorsement of every order made below.

The Child Focused Court model does not dilute PD12J

The Court of Appeal was clear that the Child Focused Court model changes procedure and culture, not the substantive law.

The model is intended to be more investigative, less adversarial and more focused on the child’s lived experience. It aims to identify safeguarding issues earlier, obtain information through the Child Impact Report and encourage a child-focused solution where that can be achieved safely.

However, Practice Direction 12J continues to apply in full.

The court must still:

• identify whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue;
• consider the nature and pattern of the alleged conduct;
• assess the effect of abuse on the child and the parent with whom the child lives;
• consider future risk;
• decide whether contact can take place safely; and
• explain how findings or admissions of abuse have affected the welfare decision.

The CFC process is therefore not a shortcut around domestic abuse safeguards. A less formal or more investigative hearing must still be fair. Both parties must have a proper opportunity to present relevant evidence, respond to allegations and understand the issues the court must decide.

What did the Court say about fact-finding?

A central issue was whether a separate fact-finding hearing was necessary.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that allegations of domestic abuse do not automatically require a separate fact-finding hearing. The question is whether determining the disputed facts is necessary to provide a reliable basis for assessing risk and deciding the child’s arrangements.

The court should ask:

1. What are the real welfare issues?
2. What is actually disputed?
3. Would a finding about the disputed conduct materially affect the decision?
4. Do existing admissions provide a sufficient factual foundation?
5. Can the relevant risk be managed through safeguards such as supervision or restricted contact?

A fact-finding hearing is not an opportunity to litigate every grievance arising from the relationship. It is not an end in itself. The allegations selected for determination should be limited to those that are relevant to the child’s welfare and future arrangements.

That does not mean serious allegations can be dismissed without proper consideration. The court must identify the factual issues clearly and give reasons if it decides that no fact-finding hearing is needed. Cafcass information, admissions and professional assessments must not be used to obscure a material dispute that needs to be resolved.

The judgment also confirms that a fact-finding hearing may be investigative rather than entirely adversarial. The judge can control the evidence and limit questioning to what is necessary, but procedural fairness remains essential.

Contact after domestic abuse has been proved or admitted

The court did not establish a rule that proven domestic abuse automatically prevents contact. Instead, the court must assess whether a carefully structured arrangement can protect the child and the parent with whom the child lives.

Where abuse has been admitted or proved, the court must explain why any contact order:

• is in the child’s best interests;
• does not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm;
• protects the resident parent as far as possible;
• includes safeguards proportionate to the risks; and
• is supported by the welfare checklist and the evidence.

This reasoning must be explicit. A judgment should not simply record that domestic abuse occurred and then order contact without explaining the connection between the findings, the risks and the arrangements imposed.

In Re C, the Court of Appeal accepted that the first-instance judge had considered the admitted abuse, the impact on the children, the children’s wishes and feelings, the history of supervised contact and the available safeguards. The judge had not treated the father’s parental status as decisive. Instead, the judge balanced the risks of continued supervised contact against the potential emotional harm of ending the children’s relationship with their father.

That balancing exercise will be fact-specific. It should not be treated as a presumption that contact is appropriate in other cases.

The role of Cafcass and the Child Impact Report

Cafcass, or Cafcass Cymru in Wales, plays an important role in the Child Focused Court process.

A Child Impact Report may bring together information about:

• the child’s views and experiences;
• safeguarding checks;
• domestic abuse allegations;
• professional assessments;
• the family’s circumstances;
• risks of future harm; and
• proposed arrangements.

Cafcass does not decide the case. The judge or magistrates remain responsible for the final welfare decision.

Parents should also understand that Cafcass is not making formal findings of fact in the same way as a court. A Cafcass officer can record and assess allegations, including where they remain disputed, but the court must be careful about relying on an allegation as though it were proved.

If a Cafcass recommendation depends materially on disputed allegations, the court should consider whether a fact-finding hearing is required before making a final order. A party who believes that important information has been missed should identify the omission clearly and explain why it affects the child’s welfare or risk assessment.

What evidence should parents prepare?

A parent raising safeguarding concerns should provide focused, relevant evidence rather than an unstructured history of the relationship.

Useful material may include:

• a chronology of significant incidents;
• messages, emails or recordings where lawfully obtained;
• police or social services references;
• medical or school records;
• evidence of breaches of existing orders;
• details of coercive or controlling behaviour;
• information about the impact on the child;
• evidence concerning handovers or communication; and
• a practical proposal for safe arrangements.

The evidence should explain why the alleged conduct matters to the child’s future welfare. For example, if the concern is that contact will be used to continue coercive control, explain how this may happen and what safeguards could prevent it.

A clear proposal is particularly important. Depending on the circumstances, this might address:

• supervised or supported contact;
• a professional contact centre;
• neutral handovers;
• indirect contact;
• restrictions on telephone or online communication;
• communication through a parenting app or third party;
• limits on activities;
• arrangements for school holidays; and
• a review process.

What does a PD12J-compliant order look like?

There is no single standard form of “PD12J-compliant” contact order. However, the order and reasons should show that the court has dealt with the relevant domestic abuse issues.

A properly reasoned order will usually identify:

• any findings or admissions;
• the risks arising from them;
• the effect on the child and resident parent;
• why contact is or is not safe;
• the safeguards required;
• who is responsible for supervision;
• how handovers will take place;
• what conduct is prohibited; and
• when the arrangements should be reviewed, if appropriate.

If the court makes contact despite established abuse, its reasons should explain why contact remains beneficial and why the safeguards adequately manage the risk.

What if you believe a contact order is unsafe?

Do not ignore a court order or unilaterally change arrangements without advice, unless there is an immediate emergency requiring urgent protective action.

If you believe an order exposes a child to risk, obtain urgent legal advice. Depending on the circumstances, options may include:

• applying to vary or discharge the child arrangements order;
• seeking an urgent prohibited steps or specific issue order;
• applying for a protective injunction;
• asking the court to suspend implementation;
• raising a breach or safeguarding incident with Cafcass or the relevant authority; and
• contacting the police or emergency services where there is immediate danger.

An application for permission to appeal does not automatically suspend an order. A separate application for a stay may be necessary.

Can you appeal a contact order?

An appeal is not a rehearing simply because a parent disagrees with the outcome. The appeal court generally considers whether the judge made an error of law, applied the wrong test, acted unfairly, failed to consider material evidence or reached a decision that was outside the range of reasonable welfare decisions.

Permission to appeal is normally required. The correct appeal route depends on the level of judge who made the decision and the type of order. In many cases, an application for permission should be made promptly and usually within 21 days of the decision, although the applicable rule and any order made by the court must be checked carefully.

If permission is refused or the deadline has passed, further procedural steps may be available, but delay can make matters more difficult. Legal advice should be obtained immediately, particularly if contact is due to take place before the appeal can be heard.

The wider debate about Child Focused Courts

The Child Focused Court model is being rolled out in stages across England and Wales. It was initially developed from the Pathfinder approach and is intended to operate across all private law children cases by approximately early 2029.

The model has attracted support for placing children’s experiences earlier in the process and for seeking a more problem-solving approach. However, there is active debate about how it operates in practice, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, limited hearing time and early decisions based on reports.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism published critical reporting on 6 October examining the outcome for the child in this case. That reporting forms part of the wider public debate about whether the model consistently delivers safe and child-centred outcomes in practice. The legal position established by the Court of Appeal should be distinguished from that broader policy debate: the court confirmed that PD12J safeguards and procedural fairness remain necessary.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Child Focused Court model?

It is a procedure for private children cases designed to identify the child’s experience, welfare needs and safeguarding risks at an early stage. It uses a more investigative and problem-solving approach, often involving a Child Impact Report prepared by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru.

Does the model apply to my case?

Not necessarily. The rollout is phased and local court arrangements may differ. Your solicitor or the court can confirm whether the case is proceeding under the Child Focused Court model.

Can I appeal if I disagree with a contact order?

Possibly, but disagreement alone is not enough. You generally need to identify an error of law, procedural unfairness, failure to consider material evidence or an unreasonable exercise of discretion. Permission is normally required and the usual time limit is 21 days, subject to the applicable rules.

What happens if abuse has been proven?

The court must consider the impact of the abuse, assess future risk and ensure that any contact arrangement protects the child and resident parent as far as possible. Contact may still be ordered in some cases, but the court must explain why it is safe and beneficial.

What evidence should I prepare?

Prepare a focused chronology, supporting documents, evidence about the child’s welfare and a realistic proposal for safe arrangements. Explain how the alleged conduct affects future risk rather than relying only on general descriptions.

Related posts and family law advice

• Child Focused Courts: What Parents Must Know
• Parental Involvement Presumption Set to Go
• Financial Orders vs. Consent Orders: What Expert Divorce Lawyers Want You to Know

Our family law solicitors in the UK advise on child arrangements, domestic abuse, protective orders, evidence, appeals and representation in family proceedings. Contact Tyndel Solicitors for advice about your circumstances.