I went to Brighton Family Court in April 2026, as a legal blogger for a public legal education charity. I observed the Pre-Hearing Review (PHR) of a mother’s 2024 application to vary a contact order made in 2022.
This was the fourth set of proceedings between the parents about a nine year old girl living with her mum, and who I’ll call Molly for this blog. Molly’s mum had applied in early 2024 to change the court order that Molly spend time with her dad. During these proceedings, Molly was meant to be spending time with him roughly monthly to re-build their relationship. Two Independent Social Workers (ISWs) and then a NYAS (National Youth Advocacy Services) guardian had been involved in efforts to encourage Molly to resume her relationship with her dad. The ISW had eventually suggested stopping that and trying therapy next. The guardian had reported that because Molly was showing persistent, significant distress and reluctance, she recommended that a psychologist assess what was going on for Molly in the wider family set up. There had been a single joint instruction of a psychologist (HCPC registered) who had now completed his report.
The Pre-Hearing Review that I attended was to prepare for the final hearing that was listed for three days in mid-July, in light of the expert report, and the parties’ responses to it. The final hearing had already been adjourned once from an original date in May (I think so the expert could have more time).
Legal blogging is always interesting, and often in unanticipated ways. I was interested in the visible pressures the family court was operating under, how the Judge dealt with transparency, how Family Justice Council (FJC) Guidance on allegations of alienating behaviours was being implemented a year or so on (including by experts and guardians), and in whether the new Child Focused Courts (formerly Pathfinder) model might have made a difference in a challenging long running case like this one if the model had been rolled out fast enough to catch it.
Family Court pressures
The hearing was listed before DJ Sullivan at 12 noon for an hour. I planned to drop in on a Magistrates’ case next door in the afternoon, but it was moments before 1pm before we got in, and moments before 2pm by the time we got out. For multiple reasons that were plainly beyond the Judge’s control this left him with just a couple of minutes’ break over the lunch period and the start of his busy afternoon list.
DJ Sullivan had three Pre Hearing Reviews and a Directions Hearing in his list that morning. The previous complex hearing had overrun, and the father’s representatives in ‘our’ case had applied on the morning for a video link (despite directions for in person attendance) saying there had been an error. That request didn’t reach the court staff until much later. My own email of a week earlier, notifying intent to attend and ask for a Transparency Order and for the position statements and case summary, had reached the court file but not the judge or advocates. The auto reply suggested they were mid-switch to automated court filing of emails and emailed documents. Presumably this was on top of managing the backlogs that have become a permanent feature of family courts in recent years – except in those courts resourced to clear backlogs as a precursor to the rollout out of Pathfinder. The court staff seemed highly regarded and were obviously working as hard as they could.
As quickly became clear, this case about this child was long-running, way out of time targets, complex, and seemingly intractable. The reasons for that (and the way forward following the expert psychologist’s report) were neither agreed nor straightforward.
Transparency decisions
The Judge dealt with my attendance at the outset and the Transparency Order and documents at the end. No party formally objected to my attendance. No party objected either to the making of a Transparency Order on standard terms. Yet when I asked about seeing the position statements to understand better what I wanted to write about, DJ Sullivan said I shouldn’t see the NYAS Guardian’s position statement in response to the psychologist’s report. This is a departure from the usual open justice starting point in the template Transparency Order (Para 16), that reporters are entitled to see party position statements if they’ve asked ahead.
The judge had been critical of the guardian’s position statement earlier in the hearing, on the basis it had overreached from what the expert had actually recommended regarding what the judge and parties then variously referred to as ‘a transitional holiday’; ‘a change of placement’; and / or ‘going into foster care’ for this child. The expert had merely ‘touched upon‘ these, not ‘recommended’ them, said the judge, whose own preliminary view was that family therapy looked the most productive way forward (if it could be funded). ‘Going down extreme paths’ was not the support this child needed, and foster care wasn’t even on the horizon. The guardian’s position statement hadn’t helped him and would be unlikely to help me. He’d been surprised by the contents of some of the documents he’d seen. He asked the father’s legal representative to send me the composite Case Summary instead and said I should receive all the parties’ position statements for the Final Hearing, if I decided to attend. I was asked to email ahead again if deciding to.
As it turned out, the composite Case Summary anyway summarised the key recommendations from the position statements. And to my surprise the sealed Transparency Order I eventually received contained no variation to the standard terms that permit reporters to see position statements they’ve asked for ahead. So I asked again for them and this time I got them.
The NYAS guardian had offered the view that there was no good enough reason for Molly to not see her father and had quoted some of the expert’s views. Her recommendations in her position statement ahead of the Pre Hearing Review had been that the current arrangements for monthly contact between Molly and her father should continue in the lead-up to the final hearing; that therapy should be explored but might not be successful if Molly was still living with her mum; and that a change in residence should be explored in parallel now, in case progress on contact was not meaningful before final hearing. That would be difficult because Molly was saying things like ‘I hate you, I’m scared of you, I don’t want to see you again’ directly to her dad, so only foster care could provide a neutral placement. The guardian also noted that Molly had mentioned a new historical issue to the expert, telling him that her dad used to raise his middle finger at her.
I haven’t named the court appointed expert at this point though I could. My interest lies in the systems-wide question of how he and other professionals are interpreting and implementing relatively new alienating behaviours guidance, in challenging cases such as this one, particularly where they have been running since long before the guidance was issued, albeit based on existing principles the guidance is based on applied prior.
The Family Justice Council (FJC) Guidance on allegations of alienating behaviours and how it’s being implemented
I tried to work out how this case fitted with the December 2024 FJC Guidance on responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance, or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour.
The Guidance (paraphrased) says that:
- alleged alienating behaviours affecting the child’s behaviour are for the Judge’s evaluation alone, as part of the factual matrix of the case, not for experts to diagnose or risk assess.
- Alleged alienating behaviours only fall for consideration where a child’s resistance, refusal or reluctance (RRR) can’t be otherwise explained: a child’s RRR may be for many reasons, so alienating behaviours must not be assumed from apparently inexplicable resistance alone; nor from the language a child has used in isolation; and care is needed not to dismiss a child’s voice without compelling evidence they’ve been manipulated (paras 108; 47; 71;19;24).
- Where findings of domestic abuse have led to a child’s justified rejection (or parental protective parenting or victim parent trauma behaviours), findings of alienating behaviours should not be made at all (para 18).
- If the Court is considering findings of alienating behaviours where domestic abuse has been alleged, it should start with findings on the prior alleged domestic abuse and decide on any alienating behaviours only afterwards through that prism (para 52).
From what I was hearing, this expert had said that Molly’s mum must let go of her victimhood to allow her to move forward with her dad, and also that the child’s voice had a ‘mimetic’ quality. He had then in some way ‘touched on’ (short of recommending), options including a possible ‘transitional holiday’; ‘change of placement’; and / or ‘going into foster care. I can’t comment on the expert’s recommendations and reasoning without permission to read and report from his report. The position statements reference snippets but I don’t have permission to quote them and they don’t give me the whole picture from which to form a view.
I had also wondered throughout the hearing whether or not there had been a fact-finding hearing on the allegations of domestic abuse at some point during the various proceedings. I thought perhaps not because reference was being made instead to certain limited admissions on behalf of the father at an earlier stage (which he seemed to now dispute at least in part). The position statement filed on behalf of Molly’s mum that I later received said there had not been any findings of fact heard.
The Judge mentioned that the admissions were a long time ago, and anyway at the lower end of a scale of abuse or bad behaviour, albeit he didn’t want to down-play domestic abuse. He seemed to be asking what difference findings would make now. I can’t help the reader with the nature and severity of those admissions at this point, having not seen them.
It was said for Molly’s dad that he had only ever admitted verbal abuse; may not have had legal advice when making his admissions; and that other references in the bundle to domestic abuse were assertions made by Molly’s mum, that later became facts in the eyes of professionals. He believed Molly’s behaviour was the result of her mum as he said the expert had described. He thought that the expert should have been instructed earlier. He was adamantly against foster care but offered a carefully planned 3 or 4 week ‘holiday’ or to accommodate Molly if it came to it. He didn’t oppose therapy but was worried about cost.
Counsel for Molly’s mum took the Judge to the schedule of admissions in the bundle and pointed out that they included an admission of pushing her when pregnant. She referred also to records of Molly telling the ISW that it wasn’t just shouting. She said there were numerous other references in the trial bundle and that Molly’s mum needed to call the expert because she didn’t agree his conclusions about the causes of the harm the child was suffering, or her role in that. She said the expert hadn’t addressed the admissions of domestic abuse recorded on the face of an order in the bundle and had then wrongly relied on that foundational misconception to draw his conclusions. He’d worked from the basis that there had been no determination of abuse or findings of fact in this case (which was the technically correct position, the judge said), without considering the background and history before moving to draw conclusions about Molly’s refusal and the mother’s potential role in it. She said Molly’s mum was actively supportive of her attending contact and willing to engage in therapy.
Neither parent had legal aid. The guardian said calling the expert psychologist could not be justified under the child’s public funding certificate because the guardian did not wish to question the expert on behalf of the child. If there was any discussion of the possibility of the judge directing the guardian to produce the expert if she wanted to rely on him given that Molly’s mum was challenging some of his evidence and thus paying some or all of his fees, I missed it. The cost of requiring the expert’s attendance for questioning was said to be likely to run into the multiple thousands. Both parents were represented on the day. Molly’s dad was legally represented and her mum seemed to be self representing but paying for some direct access legal representation at hearings.
Ultimately, the judge said it was too late in the day, and too unclear as to whether the mother would find some way to fund calling the expert, for him to direct that expert’s attendance at final hearing for cross examination at this point. Molly’s mother could make a full, formal application if she decided she could fund his attendance. He’d decide any application on the papers after written responses from the parties. The parents were instead permitted to put joint (but not jointly agreed) written questions to the expert if they wished to, presumably at their own expense.
DJ Sullivan also wondered aloud if the father’s perseverance could of itself be counterproductive, and whether and when there might be a point when the court ran out of steps it could take, notwithstanding any duty to leave no stone unturned in trying to re- establish the bond between a child and parent where safe and in the child’s interests to do so – although he also suggested that point had not yet been reached.
Everyone thought that Molly was suffering harm from the situation, but the causes of that harm and solutions were not agreed. The judge agreed the direction that the guardian sought, for a Local Authority s.37 report and asked for it ‘in advance of the next hearing’ with a request about support services for Molly. Directions were also made for ongoing investigation of therapy. The expert psychologist was to be asked to agree that any therapy identified was suitable, and there would need to be notes from any therapy. The father was directed to attend in person for the final hearing. The parties were reminded in a recital that all email correspondence must be copied to all parties going forward, as Molly’s mother said that hadn’t been happening.
What Next?
I left wondering what the expert had actually said; about his evidence base; and about how he’d interpreted the FJC guidance in this case.
I wondered too whether the new Child Focused (formerly Pathfinder) Court model, would have helped had it arrived in time for this child. Child Focused Courts are operating a less adversarial, more investigative model where possible, that prioritises the child’s voice early in a child impact statement. Court backlogs need to be cleared so that any fact-finding hearings required can be dealt with more quickly before any child resistant behaviours or allegations of alienating behaviours develop or become entrenched. This approach is operating now in 10 of 43 court areas of England and Wales (including all of Wales). Rollout to 8 more English family court areas is planned for 2026/2027, with eventual roll out to all English family court areas due ‘in coming financial years’.
Update – We understand that Molly’s NYAS guardian applied in May to adjourn the final hearing on the basis that the S.37 report had not yet been received, and were told on following up a month later that the application hadn’t even yet reached the judge as Brighton are running 12 weeks behind. It might well not be looked at until the day before the hearing.
Further update – At the time of publishing, we’re told that the final hearing dates have now been vacated and re listed again for three days in September. However, the parties have also received notice of two further directions hearings – a 30 minutes 3pm slot on the last day of what would have been the final hearing dates in July and a one hour directions appointment in August between 10am and 4pm with the parties to attend for discussions at 9am. The latter references the case as being one of the longest running in Sussex and contains standard warnings, including that parties should be prepared for all options including a final order without proceeding to any further contested hearing. We understand that the parties have written to the court to ask if both directions hearings are intended or if there has been some mistake.
We don’t know yet whether one of our volunteers will be able to attend the Final Hearing at least in part, if it goes ahead in July, or apply to see any extra documents like the experts report or any s.37 report. In any event we’ll ask for final orders and a link to any published judgment, in order to update this initial report when we can.
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England & Wales run largely by volunteers who also have full-time jobs. We’re working hard to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work within it.
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.
Thanks for reading!
T