Family court backlogs: children and families let down amid lack of urgency from government, says PAC report

- PAC calls for clarity on how govt will resolve shortage of district judges and social workers

- Evidence raises concerns that system does not meet needs of domestic abuse victims    

Children and families are being let down by unacceptably long delays in the justice system. In its report on improving family court services for children, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found no urgent need in government to bring down waiting times to acceptable levels, as written evidence to its inquiry raised concerns over a process that is inefficient and hard to navigate for families.

There has been a statutory requirement for over a decade for most public law cases to be completed within 26 weeks. This deadline has never been met. Over 4,000 children were involved in public and private law cases open for longer than 100 weeks in December 2024. While the PAC's inquiry heard of a 3-week improvement in average case durations in the course of the last year, four of the five of the government's priority indicators on caseload and timeliness for 2024-25 were not met, with no clear plan for how they will be. Around 32% of public law cases have at least one hearing cancelled before the hearing takes place, leading to delays and wasted resources.

Written evidence to the PAC's inquiry raised a number of concerns with the system, including the impact of court backlogs on those involved in domestic abuse cases. The report finds that delays in cases weigh heavily on children, in particular for domestic abuse victims, but that government's understanding of the differential impacts on different groups of service users, or what happens to children after court, remains poor. Family courts were often described as complex, inefficient and difficult to navigate for families without legal support. The inquiry heard concerns that court staff, legal advisors and Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) staff, are poorly resourced or trained to support domestic abuse victims, and that their needs are not being met by the family justice process.

A lack of district judges and social workers are contributing to delays, with particularly poor performance in case durations in London and the South East driven by these shortages (cases lasting on average 53 weeks in London as compared to 24 weeks in Wales). The PAC's inquiry found a lack of any systematic assessment of what capacity would be required to meet regional demand, and is calling for further clarity on what government is doing to address workforce problems.

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, and the Ministry of Justice has provided £500 towards families' mediation costs since 2021 - but the report finds that uptake of this voucher scheme remains too low. The PAC's report calls on government to clarify how the additional £2bn of new investment in children's social care will be spent - for example, in improving family support to help families stay together and avoid the court system.

Clive Betts MP, Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “Our Committee would like to thank everyone who took the time to submit evidence to this inquiry. Some evidence was deeply personal, and we have been unable to publish all of it - but every submission contributed to a picture of a system badly letting down the children and families that it is there to serve. Alarmingly, when challenged on unacceptable waiting times in the system, government fell back on defending moderate improvements since the pandemic, rather than appreciating the urgent need for reform glaringly obvious to court users.

“Of particular concern to our inquiry was evidence that the system is not meeting the needs of domestic abuse victims. There are encouraging findings highlighted in our report in the roll-out of the Pathfinder scheme to take a whole system approach to improve victims' experience. The government should seize the opportunity this represents to improve private law performance, while bearing down on blind spots in the system which prevent improvements from being properly targeted. Given the experience of the system described to our inquiry by children and families, complacency is not an option.”

PAC report conclusions and recommendations 

Children and families are being let down by a family justice system, that is taking much longer than it should. Case durations are unacceptably long, with an average duration of 36 and 41 weeks respectively for public law and private law, as of December 2024. Since 2014, there has been a statutory requirement that most public law cases should be completed within 26 weeks, a deadline that has never been met.  The caseload for public law and private law increased, and timeliness deteriorated in the lead up to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. MoJ and HMCTS have told us that average case durations improved by about three weeks in the course of the last year, and that, by the end of March 2025, the number of those waiting for over 100 weeks had also reduced. Nonetheless, four out of five of the indicators on caseload and timeliness that the FJB set for 2024-25 were still not met and the departments still do not have a clear plan for when these targets will be achieved. 

Recommendation 1. MoJ and DfE, should, over the next three months, working with partners as necessary, set out how they plan to improve family justice timeliness overall, including: clear objectives; measurable milestones; and a realistic timetable for achieving them.

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. 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 2. 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.

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 3. 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; 
• 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 improving family support to help families stay together and avoid the court system.

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 4. 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.

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 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 5. 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.

‘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.

Recommendation 6. 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.