Jon Comlay, Author at Parklane Plowden

Expertise

Our Expertise

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Parklane Plowden Chambers Strengthens Family Team with Children’s Law Silk

Parklane Plowden Chambers has welcomed a children’s law silk to its 38-strong family team as part of its strategy of continued expansion  Simon Bickler KC, who was called to the bar 1988 and took silk in 2011, joins from Leeds-based St Pauls Chambers where he was previously Head of Chambers.  Appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge sitting in family law in 2019, his practice encompasses all aspects of children’s law including abduction, private and public law.  Simon’s specialisms include child arrangement disputes, serious and non-accidental injuries and child fatalities, sexual abuse allegations alongside fabricated and induced illness and child relocation proceedings.  His clients include local authorities, parents, children’s guardians, extended family, foster carers and prospective adopters.  Commenting on his new tenancy, Simon said: “I’m pleased to join Parklane Plowden’s family team, which has a long-established reputation for its progressive outlook and expertise in both private and public law proceedings.  “The set has seen significant growth and I look forward to working with like-minded colleagues who support a broad range of clients in proceedings and are committed to delivering positive outcomes.”  Parklane Plowden senior practice director, Stephen Render, commented: “Simon is a highly experienced, renowned silk whose additional judicial role makes him a valuable asset to our expanding family team.”  “He has handled a range of complex cases which means he is well positioned to support clients during proceedings which are often accompanied by high-levels of emotion.”  Please click <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/simon-bickler-kc/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a> to access Simon Bickler KC's profile.

Consent, control, and ‘the silencing of the child’s voice in medical interventions’ – Re G [2025] Fam Law 254

We are pleased to share that Parklane Plowden family pupil, Avaia Williams, has recently published an article in the Family Law Journal (February 2025).  In this piece, Avaia provides insight into the High Court decision in Re G, where the court examined whether parental consent can authorise nasogastric feeding (and any necessary restraint) of a 12-year-old girl with anorexia nervosa who refused treatment. Central to the article is the tension between, on the one hand, established case law and parental responsibility, and, on the other, the paramount importance of the child’s rights and autonomy. Avaia discusses how the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice, now considered outdated, complicates these cases and leaves ambiguity about the proper legal framework.  “The spillover of this reasoning into cases like Re G, where G's resistance to treatment was known, places the child's rights at the bottom of the hierarchy, effectively replacing their voice with parental consent shaped by medical advice. This is particularly concerning when the child is not capable of articulating their opposition or consent, further marginalising their autonomy.”  In addressing the court’s ruling that a parent can consent to treatment, even that which is repeatedly “invasive and traumatic” and will amount to a deprivation of liberty, the article questions whether the welfare principle and a child’s wishes truly retain their prominence when a child’s competence is in doubt. Avaia highlights the potential need for more robust judicial oversight:  “Going forward, notwithstanding the discussion in Re G, Trusts would be benefited by issuing cases to ensure proper oversight, particularly given there are going to be such circumstances where it is not clearly in the best interests of the child to restrain and enforce treatment. Until such a time as a revised Code is produced, best practice should ensure that the welfare principle is upheld, and that the child's voice (even if apparently ascertainable through parents) is properly heard.”  For further details on Re G’s implications for both families and practitioners, you can read Avaia’s full article in Family Law Journal (February 2025 issue) <a href="https://plus.lexis.com/uk/document/?pdmfid=1001073&crid=edb0238e-ea5f-4931-8e98-587e4b38ab49&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials-uk%2Furn:contentItem:6F9D-F753-RTC9-P43B-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=228780&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pddocumentnumber=1&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=5t5k&earg=sr0&prid=7cd62a4a-4ef6-4ca3-8b80-e894e703a355" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.   <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/avaia-williams-pupil/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Avaia</a> will be taking instructions in all areas of children law and Court of Protection (Health & Welfare) from 07 April 2025.

Exploring non-court dispute resolution methods in family cases

Listen to Parklane Plowden’s latest PLP Podcast – Exploring non-court dispute resolution methods in family cases  Parklane Plowden family barristers <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/giorgia-sessi/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Giorgia Sessi</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/daniel-pitt/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Daniel Pitt</a> and head of the Family team <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/julia-nelson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Julia Nelson</a> explore non-court based dispute resolution methods, something which practitioners now have to advise clients to engage in meaningfully throughout cases.  Together they explore a range of non-court dispute resolution methods, including private financial dispute resolution (FDR) and arbitration as well as looking ahead to how AI is impacting the work of family lawyers.  Key questions covered include why legal practitioners should recommend a private FDR or arbitration, what cases they are most suited for and what impact the speed and flexibility has compared to court-based hearings.  They also discuss how to maximise the effectiveness of private FDRs alongside issues such as cost implications, judge selection, how to handle parties who back out or who do not want to settle and ensuring neutrality.  Listen to the podcast below.

PLP Hosts University of Leeds Debate Finals

On 03 March 2025, Parklane Plowden was delighted to host an impressive and talented group of speakers from Leeds Law Society and Lawyers Without Borders for the debate finals. Judged by our two Leeds pupils, Lydia Reed and Avaia Williams, the proposal was a challenge for any seasoned debater: “This house believes that democratic states should constitutionally prohibit the imposition of martial law."  Two teams competed in the heated finals, with Leeds Law Society emerging victorious. Delivering a powerful argument against the motion, demonstrating adept advocacy and reasoning.  The judges also awarded two ‘distinguished speaker’ acknowledgments for those speakers who showed talent and ability beyond that which would be expected. Matilda Forrest who took on the role of Leader of the Opposition, and Fatima Babar who was acting as Opposition Whip, both performed exceptionally and left a lasting impression on Lydia and Avi.  Parklane Plowden had hosted the previous two heats in the competition. James Murphy, Head of Chambers, judged the first-round concerning whether the internet should be provided as a basic human right; with Dominic Crossley presiding over the second-round debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.  These events were organised by the Law Society's Debating Secretary, Evie Dutton.  Teams/Speakers  Leeds Law Society (winning team)  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Matilda Forrest (distinguished speaker)</li>  <li>Fatima Babar (distinguished speaker)</li>  <li>Abdul-Hafeez Ganiyu</li>  <li>Kailing Ruan</li> </ol>  Lawyers Without Borders  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Maryam Khawaja</li>  <li>Sumana Madichetty</li>  <li>Zaara Ilani Binti Mohd Zin</li>  <li>Janith Prabashwara Perera Jayatilake Kankanamalage</li> </ol>  Quotes  "We had an insightful evening listening to the debate. It was encouraging to see so many enthusiastic debaters and we hope they enjoyed their visit to Chambers as much as we did hosting them." (Lydia Reed)  “It was a pleasure hosting the teams and observers from the University, supporting with outreach such as this is something that really matters to me and Chambers and we are dedicated to working with local groups and organisations to encourage talented young people to pursue the Bar. I had a really enjoyable time judging the debate, and it was surprising to learn that many of those speakers who joined us were only just in their first year, including our distinguished speakers.” (Avaia Williams)

When enough is enough – Court of Appeal Decides Against International Placement

Avaia Williams (Pupil) and Deborah Shield review the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in the case of <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/214" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Re M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214</a>. A decision concerning the placement options for a young boy, M, where the court was asked to grapple with placing the child for adoption or delaying proceedings and determination to support a possible family placement abroad.  The judgment, given by Lady Justice King, is infused with the concept that delay is prejudicial to a child, and that there comes a point within proceedings where ‘enough is enough’ and the nettle must be grasped.  Background  M was born during existing care proceedings relating to the parents other children. M was initially placed with the mother under an Interim Care Order, however, following breaches of the safety plan, M was placed into foster care.  The mother put forward M’s aunt and uncle, who lived in Pakistan, as alternative carers. These alternative carers were supported by the Local Authority until August 2024, at which point, the Local Authority moved to a plan of adoption within the UK.  By the time of the final hearing in October, a positive Children and Families Across Boarders (“CFAB”) assessment had been completed of the aunt and uncle. This assessment raised some concerns and uncertainties, such as the level of education that would be available to M and the impact on the family unit in Pakistan given the uncle may need to work extended hours and abroad. That being said, the assessment recommended the aunt and uncle as:  “suitable to be considered to care for the children (sic) if they are provided with financial support.”   Given the positive CFAB assessment, the aunt and uncle sought an adjournment at the final hearing to allow a full assessment of them to be carried out within the UK (as would be required to affect such a placement abroad). This was refused by the court, and a Placement Order was made. The judge’s reasoning was encapsulated by the placement with the aunt and uncle being “fraught with uncertainties”, at [41] the Court of Appeal quoted the judges reasoning that:  “…there is sadly no clear and confirmed timescale for the assessment to be completed, and no guarantee that it will be positive (though I accept, there are grounds for optimism that it would be based on the CFAB assessment). [M] has no existing relationship with the Aunt and Uncle (although they have seen him over video calls in the first few weeks of his life, he does not know them, and they speak a different language  I have balanced these very real and in my judgment legitimate concerns with the potential positives in the court sanctioning delay for assessment to take place, because, if positive, it would enable [M] to be placed with an extended family member, in a cultural and religious match, with the possibility for ongoing relationship (even if limited) with his parents and other family members.”  Grounds of Appeal  The aunt and uncle appealed on five grounds, that the judge was wrong to:  “i) Accept that Accept that a plan to place M with his aunt and uncle was “fraught with uncertainties”.  ii) Conclude that it would be akin to 6–12 months before a successful placement could be achieved if an assessment of the aunt and uncle were positive.  iii) Conclude that there was a real possibility that the assessment would be negative.   iv) Conclude that an adjournment was not within M’s reasonable timescales for achieving a permanent placement absent direct evidence as to timescales to place M for adoption.  v) Fail to consider if a “robust and focused timescale” could have been imposed to lead to an expeditious resolution of proceedings following further assessment of the aunt and uncle.”  In submissions, Teertha Gupta KC, focused on the third and fifth grounds of appeal, having conceded there were clear uncertainties with the plan and that the assessment for 6-12 months was something the judge could have reasonably assessed.  Ground iii  With respect to ground iii, the Court stated at [53]  “That there was a real possibility that the assessment might fail was in my judgment an inevitable consequence of the uncertainty inherent in the whole complicated plan; for example, it may simply not have been viable because the funding was no longer available from the cash-poor local authority or the applications for visas may be refused. M may himself have found the introduction to his aunt and uncle with the language barrier just too difficult and, as had been identified by Ms Rafiq, there were issues with schools and the home conditions. These were all potential stumbling blocks. For my part I can see that there was also a significant risk that the demands on the aunt and uncle might be simply too great. Should the matter have been adjourned then, providing they managed to obtain visas, the family would have relocated to a strange country for an unspecified period of time for assessment and, if successful, the uncle would then return to Pakistan with the two older (but by no means grown up) children. Once home they would have to manage without their primary carer while their father worked punishingly long hours, potentially for many months, whilst court proceedings took their course in both the UK and Pakistan, proceedings which would be necessary in order to provide essential protection for M’s position in Pakistan.”  It was clear that the judge did consider the positives within the CFAB assessment, notably the cultural match and a family placement, however, drawing on Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents Competing Claims) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, the Court reaffirmed at [55] that:  “As in any case where it is hoped that a family placement can be achieved it is important, as was perhaps not recognised until too late in this case, that there is no presumption or right for a child to be brought up by a member of his or her natural family.”  On ground iii, the court concluded at [56] that:  “Ultimately the judge concluded that M’s welfare demanded that he be placed for adoption and that when she performed a proportionality cross check she said she was “satisfied that, despite its draconian nature and lifelong consequences, adoption is a necessary and proportionate interference – in short, nothing else will do”.”  Ground v  As to ground v, it was submitted by Teertha Gupta KC, that, given the delay already in place, there was no requirement for the court to now “bring down the guillotine” and that an extension should be granted under s.32(5) Children Act 1989. The Court relied on Sir James Munby’s assessment in Re S (a child) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) [2015] 1 WLR 925, where the then President held at [34] of that judgment that:  “I repeat, because the point is so important, that in no case can an extension beyond 26 weeks be authorised unless it is "necessary" to enable the court to resolve the proceedings "justly". Only the imperative demands of justice – fair process – or of the child's welfare will suffice…”  Further, the Court drew on the judgment of Peter Jackson LJ in Re S-L (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 1571, where the Court of Appeal in that case, at [12], decided that:  “In cases involving children, there can sometimes be good reasons for adjourning a final decision in order to obtain necessary information. The overriding obligation is to deal with the case justly, but there is a trade-off between the need for information and the presumptive prejudice to the child of delay […] public law proceedings are subject to a statutory timetabling imperative. Section 32(1)(a) provides that the court must draw up a timetable for disposing of the application without delay and in any event within 26 weeks; subsection 32(5) allows an extension only where the court considers it necessary to enable the proceedings to be resolved justly.”  The Court considered the crucial age at which M now was. M was entering critical phases for developing his attachments.  On ground v, the court concluded at [64] that:  “…the judge’s careful and sympathetic analysis of the application for an adjournment for further assessments of the aunt and uncle cannot be faulted and in my judgment she reached the right decision given the uncertainties inherent in the proposed plan for placement in Pakistan and the urgency of achieving permanency for M.”  Comment  Tt has been 12 years since the Supreme Court gave the landmark ruling in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, and the Court of Appeal gave guidance in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. It was hoped that the Court of Appeal may have taken this opportunity to provide further guidance on the concept of “nothing else will do” given this nebulous concept has caused much debate and concern for practitioners across the board.  The concept of “nothing else will do” creates a paradox when paired with a clear statutory time-limit of 26-weeks for resolving children proceedings. How can it be said, on the purely factual basis in this case, and countless others, that nothing else will do for this child. Whilst the judge was evidently right to conclude that the assessment and placement with the aunt and uncle was an uncertain placement, it is a comment which can be applied to every placement that results from care proceedings, whether adoption or otherwise.  What is clear, is that this child had a clear opportunity to be placed within his family unit. Notwithstanding the decision of the Court of Appeal, and previous decisions, that there is no ‘right’ to such a family placement, it is incontestable that a family placement has inherent benefits and is the preferred outcome where that placement is safe (were this not the case, Local Authorities would have no duty to assess connected carers). So, whilst the assessment of the aunt and uncle was not clear, it was optimistic and was a viable way forward. As such, on a literal interpretation, it could not be said that “nothing else will do” but placing M for adoption.  It is clear that “nothing else will do” comes with several caveats such that the actual rule, or at least how it is applied in courts, appears to be more akin to “nothing else will reasonably or realistically do, given the welfare needs of the child”. As the Court of Appeal in Re M have made clear, delay, especially where 26-weeks has been surpassed, will clearly require that any alternative plan be more and more realistic and more and  more reasonable than it otherwise may have to be at the start of proceedings (this being encapsulated by the Local Authorities approach here).  What can be learned from this case, is the need for Local Authorities, and those representing parents, to be proactive in identifying and assessing potential kinship carers at the earliest possible stage of proceedings. ‘Front-loading’ these assessments can help avoid the late emergence of an overseas relative or other connected person, which often places the court in the difficult position of choosing between exploring a potentially appropriate kinship placement and meeting strict statutory deadlines. By initiating thorough kinship assessments at the outset, local authorities not only ensure transparency and fairness but also mitigate the risk of children lingering in uncertain temporary arrangements. From the parental perspective, practitioners should advise parents on the importance of promptly disclosing potential family carers and providing all necessary details as soon as possible, thus offering a more realistic chance of success for kinship placements if they are viable.  A clear problem in practice is the misunderstanding of twin tracking by a) the parents; and b) the prospective carers; it must be made abundantly clear to those involved in proceedings, that suggesting such connected carers in no way takes away from the assessment of parents or the court dealing with proceedings.  Local authorities and practitioners acting for parents must collaborate to address matters such as visa applications, relocation logistics, funding arrangements, and compliance with both UK and foreign legal systems at an early stage. Where an international assessment is a serious possibility, forward planning, including formal engagement with international bodies like CFAB and seeking specialist advice, should form part of the initial case strategy, ensuring clarity around timelines, financial support, and the child’s specific educational or medical needs if placed overseas. It appears that, in such cases, the recommendations made by the Public Law Working Group in respect of international adoption may offer valuable steering.  Deborah Shield, led by Teertha Gupta KC, acted for the aunt and uncle in the Court of Appeal.

Deborah Shield appears in Court of Appeal Case Deciding Against International Placement

Deborah Shield appeared in Re M (A Child) (Placement Order) [2025] EWCA Civ 214.  The case concerned the placement options for a young boy, M, where the court was asked to grapple with placing the child for adoption or delaying proceedings and determination to support a possible family placement abroad.  Deborah Shield, led by Teertha Gupta KC, acted for the aunt and uncle in the Court of Appeal.  For more on this matter, please read Deborah Shield and Avaia Williams' review of the case, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/when-enough-is-enough-court-of-appeal-decides-against-international-placement/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Parklane Plowden Chambers hosts North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum International Women’s Day Event

To mark International Women’s Day on 8 March 2025 the North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum held a breakfast meeting with guest speaker, <a href="https://nikkialdersoncoaching.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nikki Alderson</a>, for female barristers of all practice areas and calls on Circuit.  Nikki delivered a keynote speech on “Breaking Barriers to being your Best” which focussed on mindset, resilience and confidence, and shared practical coaching strategies to empower participants to break barriers to becoming their best at work and beyond.  Participants then engaged in discussion sharing some experiences and ideas.  A clear take-away was the reminder of the importance of ‘controlling the controllables’ in any setting, be it our response to an interaction or event, demands, or expectations.  The International Women’s Day campaign for 2025 theme is “Accelerate Action” for gender equality. The work of the North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum, chaired by <a href="https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/barrister/kama-mellyqc/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Kama Melly KC</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/leila-benyounes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Leila Benyounes</a> and <a href="https://www.newparkcourt.co.uk/barrister/chloe-hudson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Chloe Hudson</a> continues to support this.  PLP is committed to EDI and working to accelerate action for change. We have an active Equality and Diversity Committee and are invested in initiatives in Chambers, on Circuit, and beyond, to aid bringing about change and advance equality opportunities.

Missed Opportunities to Carry Out an Assessment During Mental Health Crisis

Megan Crowther represented the family of a young man who died after he jumped from the Wearmouth Bridge in Sunderland, whilst suffering an exacerbation of Schizoaffective Disorder. The Deceased had been recently been detained under the Mental Health Act for treatment and was discharged from hospital, around two months before his death, under a Community Treatment Order which allowed for him to be detained again under the Mental Health Act if he required further treatment.  The Inquest heard evidence that the Deceased had revealed an attempt to take his own life around two weeks before his death and as a result, the community treatment team were planning more regular checks on the Deceased. Unfortunately, over the following weekend, the Deceased called the Crisis Team in extreme distress and requested he be admitted to hospital. The Deceased was categorised as ‘very urgent’ for which a face to face assessment was expected within four hours. That did not take place. The Deceased phoned the Crisis Team several times over the following two days and repeated that he had plans to end his life, leading to a statement in his final phone call that he would jump from the bridge unless he was transferred to hospital or new accommodation. The Deceased was known to hear voices, specifically in his accommodation. Unfortunately, the Deceased jumped from the bridge within twenty minutes of the final phone call. There was no assessment of the Deceased in the 48 hours between his first phone call and his sad death.  The Coroner found that there were missed opportunities by the Crisis Team to carry out an earlier assessment of the Deceased, and that an assessment should have been carried out before he died. The Court heard evidence that if the Crisis Team had determined that the Deceased could not be managed in the community at this time, then the Responsible Clinician would have detained the Deceased under the MHA for further treatment. There was also a missed opportunity to call the police when the Deceased made a specific threat to jump from the bridge.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/megan-crowther/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Megan Crowther</a> practices clinical negligence, personal injury and inquests. She regularly represents interested persons in a wide range of inquests including complex medical matters and Article 2 inquests.

PLP Hosting North Eastern Circuit International Women’s Day Event

The North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum is holding a breakfast meeting at 8.30am on Tuesday 4th March at Parklane Plowden Chambers to mark International Women’s Day 2025.  Guest speaker, Nikki Alderson, will deliver a keynote speech on “Breaking Barriers to being your Best” which focuses on mindset / resilience and confidence, and shares practical coaching strategies to empower participants to break barriers to becoming their best at work and beyond.  Please see below for further information and use the link here to book your place: <a href="http://www.northeasterncircuit.co.uk/events/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">www.northeasterncircuit.co.uk/events/</a>

Neurodiversity and the Family Courts – New Guidance Seeks to Bridge the Gap

Avaia Williams and Chloe Branton provide an overview and analysis of the new guidance issued by the Family Justice Council on neurodivergence within the family courts.  Introduction  Neurodivergence is a broad term, with the phrase considered to be coined by the sociologist Judy Singer. It commonly refers to people who are diagnosed or present with ADHD, Autistic Spectrum Conditions, and neurodevelopmental conditions such as Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia and Dyslexia. However, the umbrella remains undefined by law, as such the term can include wider, and potentially unexpected, conditions and diagnoses including intellectual disabilities and mental health conditions.  The judiciary, via the Equal Treatment Bench Book, still places neurodiversity under the broad umbrella of ‘mental disability’. Put simply, neurodiversity refers to the different ways a person’s brain processes, retains, and uses information compared to most of society.  Vital guidance has finally been issued on how neurodiversity and the Family Justice System interact, or should interact. In January, the Family Justice Council published guidance on neurodiversity within the family justice system for practitioners, hopefully adding to the sea change currently taking place in family law and moving towards a more understanding approach to many who come into contact with the family courts.  Neurodiversity and What It Means  Neurodiversity acknowledges the natural range of differences in how people’s brains work. Historically, these conditions have often been misunderstood or regarded solely as disorders needing a “cure.” However, there is a growing recognition that neurodivergent individuals simply process and respond to the world differently, and that there is no single, correct way for a brain to function. Neurodiversity recognises cognitive differences between how people think, learn and behave.  They often bring particular strengths (such as attention to detail, creativity, principled thinking) as well as challenges (including difficulty with social interaction, concentration, sequencing information, or sensory overload).  Roughly 15% of the population is thought to be neurodivergent, though accurate figures are complicated by underdiagnosis, stigma and the broad umbrella of neurodiversity Many neurodivergent people, particularly those in minority ethnic groups and older adults, may struggle to obtain a formal diagnosis, or where they do, may not wish to disclose it. In particular, autistic women and girls and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are considered to be underdiagnosed due to outdated stereotypes and diagnostic criteria.  In the context of family proceedings, recognising neurodiversity is important not only for ensuring equitable treatment and fair access to justice, but also for promoting better outcomes for children and families. Unmet needs, whether relating to communication, sensory sensitivities, or comprehension, can negatively impact how parties and witnesses engage with proceedings, risking injustice and procedural unfairness.  Neurodiversity parents in particular can face challenges in the way they are assessed by professionals and real care and attention is needed to ensure fair treatment and assessment. In addition, neurodiverse conditions can be co-morbid (or co-occurring) presenting different challenges for the individual as the support they would benefit from may be different to those who only have 1 of those conditions.    In his foreword to the guidance, the President of the Family Division, a Chair of the Family Justice Council, Sir Andrew McFarlane, notes that:  “The universally applicable principle upon which the guidance sits, is that understanding an individual’s needs leads to better participation, and more effective justice. This principle encourages a system that, with relatively light adjustments, can improve participation and outcomes for children and families.  I encourage practitioners working within the Family Justice System to read the guidance carefully and to consider how they can adopt best practice.”  Breakdown of the Guidance  The recent guidance is built upon the principle that understanding an individual’s needs leads to better participation and more effective justice. It highlights several core areas:  Recognising Neurodivergence  Beginning with the beginning, the guidance gives an overview to terminology, and why this is important, outlining terms such as “neurotypical” (the ‘neuro majority’) and “neurodivergent” (the ‘neuro minority’) and underscores that each individual will have a unique profile of strengths and needs. Helpfully, the guidance provides a table of limitations and strengths which may be experienced by those with specific conditions, this includes things like communication difficulties for those with autism and strong verbal skills for those with dyslexia. This table will be particularly helpful for those who are new to the concept of neurodiversity, and will be a useful tool for practitioners.  Of particular note, the guidance gives an overview of ‘masking’; many neurodivergent individuals develop coping strategies to hide their traits and to ‘fit in’, particularly in stressful settings like courts. This can be exhausting and may lead professionals to underestimate or overlook support needs. The guidance describes masking as:  “…when someone uses strategies to make signs of their neurodivergence less obvious to other people. ‘Masking’ can often be a difficult and exhausting process. With or without ‘masking’, neurodivergence is often not obvious from the outside.”  Whilst the guidance is in broad terms, it is important to note that, neurodivergence is specific to each individual, as the guidance notes:  “Each neurodivergent person will have their own unique profile and support needs with a wide range of presentations. Unhelpful stereotypes and inaccurate assumptions may compound problems in identifying neurodivergence, especially people in minority ethnic groups, women, and older people.”  Why It Matters in Family Proceedings  While data on the topic is quite limited, there is strong evidence that neurodivergent people are overrepresented among court users. Underdiagnosis (especially among women and minority ethnic groups) further complicates the picture. The guidance suggests that a failure to account for neurodivergence within family justice will impact children and families, notably in two key ways:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>In assessments, whether undertaken pre-proceedings or during proceedings, or even after in some cases (the clear consequence of failing to consider neurodivergence in assessments, such as parenting assessments, being that the conclusions or analysis may be inherently flawed). </li>  <li>As barriers to effective participation, thereby restricting justice and access to a fair trial (simply put, in the same way we put in participation measures for vulnerable witnesses to ensure they best engage, a failure to account for any measures that may support neurodivergent people naturally results in them not best engaging in proceedings).</li> </ol>  The guidance references Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, plus Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which concerns respecting the views of the child, recognising each child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes. These rights underscore the requirement that all parties and children can participate meaningfully, and demonstrates the risk of not considering the impact of any neurodivergence. The guidance states:  “…neurodivergent adults or children may not have the benefit of a full understanding of their functioning. This underlines the importance of practitioners being aware of neurodivergence and how it affects individuals, especially children. That awareness is vital when considering if the parenting of a child meets the ‘good enough’ standard as well as what support families might need in providing a particular child with ‘good enough’ parenting.”  The scope of the guidance is aimed at addressing barriers to participation and ensure fair treatment. D and E (Parent with Autism) [2020] EWFC B18 set out the importance of recognising the needs of neurodivergent participants in the family courts, noting at [148]:  “That no parent must be precluded from being able to parent effectively on account of a disability is a bedrock principle of family law. The extensive specialist expert evidence in this case reaffirms the importance of recognising that parents with autism are as individual as any other parent. There is a risk that professionals may apply a set of criteria or expectations in relation to parents in light of a diagnosis of autism without fully exploring that parent's strengths and weaknesses. It is also important that a parent does not begin to explain or justify any difficulties in their parenting purely because of a diagnosis of autism. It is equally, if not more important, for professionals working with parents with autism to be alert to and take account of the parent's individual needs when working with them, bearing in mind at all times the well-established principle that intervention by a Local Authority in a family may be appropriate but that the aim should be to reunite the family when the circumstances enable that and the effort should be devoted towards that end. The Court's assessment of a parent's ability to discharge their responsibilities towards the child must always take into account the assistance and support which the authorities can offer, tailored to that parent's individual needs. Those needs must be assessed carefully, by skilled professionals, specific to that parent, without applying generalised criteria or expectations.”  Key Research and Themes  The guidance compiles emerging research showing:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Stigma and stereotypes often lead to misunderstandings of behaviours or communication styles in court.</li>  <li>Communication differences (such as a preference for direct, literal language or a need for extra processing time) can be mistaken for evasiveness.</li>  <li>Anxiety and stress are heightened for neurodivergent people, risking “shut down” or “meltdown” responses if proceedings are not adapted.</li>  <li>Invisible disabilities, including neurodivergence, pose challenges in ensuring recognition and appropriate support, especially if no formal diagnosis exists.</li> </ul>  Whilst there is little research in this area (though much is underway), the guidance is clear that:  “Reframing the narrative around neurodivergent people - from disordered to different and equally valid ways of experiencing the world - is an important element of much of the available research.”  Research into legal professionals’ knowledge of autistic adults in the Family Justice System shows that there is a lack of confidence in working with such adults. Specific training and experience in working with those with autism can increase this confidence and ensure greater access to justice. Whilst it is not established this is the case for other types of neurodivergence, it is difficult to see why this would not be the case.  The themes that are apparent are that neurodiverse people find it more challenging to engage in proceedings. Including processing information, responding to questions, recalling information, participating in the normal course of a hearing and understanding outcomes. Reminding advocates of what was said in R v Lubemba; R v JP [2014] EWCA Crim 2064:  “Advocates must adapt to the witness, not the other way round.”  Best Practice in Identifying and Meeting Needs  The guidance notes that, having a framework for thinking about, understanding, and responding would be useful. A framework, developed for autism but which has useful applications across neurodivergence, called SPELL is offered as a valid approach:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Structure, reducing anxiety and removing ambiguity</li>  <li>Positive attitudes, clear communication and respectful narratives, playing to the client’s strengths</li>  <li>Empathy, understanding the person’s experiences from their own perspective</li>  <li>Low arousal, ensuring sensitivities to sensory needs and avoiding confrontation</li>  <li>Links, consistency and connection including the person in decisions</li> </ul>  There is a need for early identification, the guidance states:  “In every case, at the earliest stage, thought should be given to whether someone might be neurodivergent. If there is an existing diagnosis, this should be accessed (if the individual concerned agrees to this). If there is an existing diagnosis further information may also be required (which can include expert assessment when necessary) in order to understand that person’s needs, strengths and the barriers which they might face.  If there is no existing diagnosis the first step for a practitioner is undertaking the exercise described below in circumstances where neurodivergence may present.”  The guidance suggests questions which could be asked that, whilst do not form screening or any diagnosis, can be helpful in advocates identifying if there may be any vulnerabilities with respect to neurodivergence.  Overcoming Barriers  It is important to understand the barriers that the person may face, this includes barriers away from court or whilst at court but outside of giving evidence. The FJC advise that a list is prepared which can be kept under review, and also notes that, it is important to  know when external assessment may be required.  Once barriers have been identified, a ‘one size fits all’ approach must be avoided. Even where there is a clear diagnosis, the individual needs should be what is focused on, not the label. Judges at Milton Keynes have introduced participation directions that are individual needs led where, unless a very good reason is identified not to, the adjustment is allowed.  The most commonly required types of adjustments are those to a) communication; b) the environment; and c) the structure and timing of the process. The guidance provides a detailed overview of some example adjustments to each of these area such as:  Communication – written communication over verbal, formulating questions in a way that considers literal interpretation, building in strategies to check understanding, and avoiding abstract language.  Environment – removing distracting objects, adjusting lighting where possible, using fidget or comfort toys, and providing a familiarisation visit.  Structure – giving evidence at a particular time of day, ensuring regular breaks, sticking to any agreed timetable, and ensuring clarity about what will happen and when.  “Many people involved in the Family Justice System will already be aware of some of the more common adjustments when a vulnerable party is giving evidence […] But often more specific and creative adjustments can be invaluable for neurodivergent people. A good example of this is seen in the case of C (Children: Welfare) (No.2) [2020] EWFC B36, where a unique procedure was devised with the help of an intermediary to enable a party to type their answers when giving evidence.”  Analysis and Opinion  The new FJC guidance represents an important step forward. It brings together existing research and best practices in a way that is practical and digestible to court users. Crucially, it foregrounds how relatively simple modifications (shorter sentences, scheduled breaks, sensory-friendly rooms) can transform the experiences of, and importantly outcomes for, neurodivergent people and their families.  However, while the guidance effectively signals that neurodivergent needs must be recognised, and provides a grounded way to do this, its impact is going to hinge on consistent adoption by all court users. Training and awareness, across all levels of the Family Justice System, including judges, clerks, security staff, advocates and intermediaries, remain vital. Courts and practitioners should be prepared to adapt to each individual, rather than expecting the individual to adapt to the existing system unassisted.  As best practice, advocates should consider the existing advocates’ toolkits and adapt them appropriately to suit each witness when providing oral evidence. Where an intermediary or other expert report is available this should be considered at each hearing and alongside the particular toolkits. Advocates must, however, be cautious to not adopt a black and white approach to working with or interacting with neurodiverse court users.  Why It Matters for Participants in the Family Court  Family proceedings are often a source of considerable anxiety and pressure for participants who are not neurodiverse. For those who are neurodiverse, those emotions can be even more heightened. For families and children navigating some of the most sensitive and stressful proceedings of their lives, meeting neurodivergent needs is more than a courtesy; it is a legal and ethical imperative, aimed at achieving the interests of justice and complying with the rule of law.  Inadequate adaptations and adjustments can result in misunderstandings of communication or behaviour, potentially leading to adverse credibility findings and unfair judgments. This can further increase already heightened anxiety and distress, in turn impeding effective participation and possibly resulting in additional trauma for those already in a vulnerable state.  When properly implemented, the adjustments set out in the guidance not only protect rights but also enhance the quality of the evidence and the fairness of outcomes, producing a process that is truly just for all.  Why It Matters More Widely  Neurodiversity is still too often overlooked or misunderstood, and the new guidance aims to encourage a broader cultural shift in attitudes and practices. By raising awareness, it helps to destigmatise neurodivergence and fosters more open conversations about different communication styles and support needs. This heightened understanding paves the way for inclusive approaches in the courtroom, so that both court users and legal professionals benefit from an environment where diverse cognitive profiles are not only recognised but also valued and accommodated.  Crucially, this emphasis on inclusivity can drive meaningful systemic change across the board. When practitioners collaborate on consistent strategies for support, people who come before the courts, particularly those with invisible conditions, are more likely to receive the adaptations they need. Such joined-up thinking leads to fairer, more accurate fact-finding processes and reduces the risk of misinterpretation or undue stress for neurodivergent participants.  Why it Matters for Judges and Lawyers  Judges play a lead role in shaping courtroom culture and overseeing how legal obligations are carried out. By actively engaging with the guidance, they can formalise measures such as ground rules hearings and tailored instructions to counsel that specifically cater to neurodivergent needs. In this way, judicial leadership signals to practitioners that effective adjustments are critical to achieving just outcomes. It also helps avoid common pitfalls, such as misreading stimming behaviour or literal communication styles, which can lead to misunderstandings, appeals, and ultimately a loss of confidence in the justice system.  Barristers and solicitors who thoroughly understand and apply the guidance are better placed to represent their clients empathetically and accurately, ensuring that instructions are taken in ways that are accessible. By identifying potential vulnerabilities early, practitioners can avoid wasted hearings or adjournments caused by unmet needs, thus enhancing both efficiency and fairness. Alongside this improved case management, the profession itself stands to gain from a commitment to inclusivity; many lawyers, court staff, and other professionals are themselves neurodivergent and may find traditional legal settings challenging. Greater awareness and adjustments can create a more supportive workplace culture and encourage greater diversity within the profession’s ranks.  Conclusions  This new guidance offers an essential framework for practitioners who seek to ensure that all court users, especially those who are neurodivergent, are properly understood and fully supported. It emphasises that failure to recognise neurodiversity can have profound consequences, not only for the rights and wellbeing of parents, children, and witnesses but also for the fair administration of justice. By highlighting the experiences and strengths of neurodivergent people, the guidance underscores that reasonable adjustments (such as tailored communication methods, a more sensory-friendly environment, and flexible structures for giving evidence) can be both straightforward to implement and transformative in outcome.  Ultimately, the practical impact of this guidance will depend on how widely and consistently it is adopted. Judges, legal professionals, and all those involved in the family justice process have a collective duty to embed these principles in daily practice. If embraced wholeheartedly, they can open the door to a more inclusive system that serves the needs of every participant. This is vital not only to uphold fundamental legal standards – such as the right to a fair trial – but also to foster confidence in the Family Court as an institution that genuinely responds to the diversity of those it serves. By doing so, we take a significant step toward ensuring that neurodivergent individuals, along with their families, experience a process that is empathetic, equitable, and truly just.  In his foreword to the guidance, the President of the Family Division (and Chair of the Family Justice Council) Sir Andrew McFarlane confirmed that guidance for the Judiciary will follow later this year. Such guidance will be welcomed and of great utility for the judiciary and practitioners alike.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/avaia-williams-pupil/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Avaia</a> is a first six pupil under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove and will be taking instructions on all aspects of children law from April 2025. He has a particular interest in transparency, access to justice and ensuring broad participation within the family courts.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/chloe-branton/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Chloe</a> is a tenant at Parklane Plowden, having completed her pupillage in 2020. Chloe practices largely in public and private children law representing parents, children, Local Authorities and intervenors. As an autistic barrister, Chloe has developed a particular interest in cases involving 1 or more of the parties being neurodivergent. Chloe has written articles for publications including the Family Law Journal and is co-chair of the North Eastern Circuit Neurodiversity Network.

Latest News

News

7 July 2025

Avaia Williams – Denying Pupil Barrister Entry

Read time: < 1 m

Legal Update

7 July 2025

Leila Benyounes – £1.5 million Settlement in Delay in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Read time: < 1 m

Legal Update

2 July 2025

Thompson’s Application for Judicial Review: Considering when a coroner becomes functus officio and when to reconsider anonymity orders

Read time: 5 m

Legal Update

1 July 2025

HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Read time: 2 m

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)

Our Expertise

Parklane Plowden Chambers Strengthens Family Team with Children&#8217;s Law Silk

Consent, control, and &#8216;the silencing of the child&#8217;s voice in medical interventions&#8217; – Re G [2025] Fam Law 254

Exploring non-court dispute resolution methods in family cases

PLP Hosts University of Leeds Debate Finals

When enough is enough – Court of Appeal Decides Against International Placement

Deborah Shield appears in Court of Appeal Case Deciding Against International Placement

Parklane Plowden Chambers hosts North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum International Women’s Day Event

Missed Opportunities to Carry Out an Assessment During Mental Health Crisis

PLP Hosting North Eastern Circuit International Women’s Day Event

Neurodiversity and the Family Courts – New Guidance Seeks to Bridge the Gap

Latest News

Avaia Williams – Denying Pupil Barrister Entry

Leila Benyounes – £1.5 million Settlement in Delay in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Thompson’s Application for Judicial Review: Considering when a coroner becomes functus officio and when to reconsider anonymity orders

HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Parklane Plowden Chambers Strengthens Family Team with Children’s Law Silk

Consent, control, and ‘the silencing of the child’s voice in medical interventions’ – Re G [2025] Fam Law 254