<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Chambers is again excited to share that barrister, Chloe Branton, and pupil Avaia Williams have recently been published in Family Law Journal, sharing their analysis and thoughts on the Family Justice Council neurodiversity guidance.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In their article, Chloe and Avaia reflect on the guidance and how it will play out in the Family Justice System, and how it is already playing out. Chloe and Avaia are regularly instructed in matters acting for neurodiverse parties and share their top tips for ensuring the guidance is more than just a soundbite, including exploring:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>why recognising neurodiverse needs is essential to fair access to justice;</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>the risks of flawed assessments where neurodivergence is overlooked;</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>the practical recommendations offered by the guidance, including the use of frameworks such as SPELL; and</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>the need for consistent adoption across the system, from judges to practitioners to court staff.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Drawing on both professional and personal experience of working with neurodiverse clients and witnesses, they highlight how relatively simple adjustments can make a profound difference to participation and outcomes.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Understanding neurodivergence is not an optional courtesy but a fundamental requirement of fairness in family proceedings. The promises of the new guidance depend on meaningful and systemic change, and consistent implementation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The full article is available in the August issue of Family Law, for those with subscriptions this can be found on Lexis Nexis.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden are delighted to announce that Professor Jo Delahunty KC has been shortlisted for two prestigious awards: 'Silk of the Year' with LexisNexis and 'DEI Champion' with Chambers and Partners. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Congratulations from everyone at PLP! </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Join us for an insightful seminar exploring the effective use of expert evidence in family law proceedings.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Led by Sarah Vella - leading expert from Evidence Matters, this session will cover best practices for instructing, presenting, and challenging expert testimony in court.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Registration will be from 4:30pm with the talk starting at 5pm and finishing at 6pm. There is an opportunity for drinks and networking with our Public Law team and guest speaker after the event. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If you would like to join, please email events@parklaneplowden.co.uk.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Pupillage is the Bar’s essential 'apprenticeship', yet pupil barristers are increasingly being turned away from the very hearings they need to watch in order to qualify. Avaia has recently written about this problem for The Barrister Magazine and discussed how sudden objections, from solicitors, litigants-in-person, opposing counsel or even the court, can derail training, impact confidence and leave lasting knowledge gaps, especially in practice areas where hearings are scarce.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Drawing on survey responses from current pupils, it becomes clear that refusals occur across jurisdictions exposing a profession-wide problem.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The piece highlights a regulatory vacuum: neither the Bar Standards Board, the Bar Council nor the senior judiciary has issued clear guidance on pupil attendance at hearings - a simple rule that recognises pupils as part of a party’s legal team unless a compelling reason for exclusion is given would save court time, reassure clients and protect the integrity of pupillage.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Avaia's article can be read in full <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2025/07/The-Barrister-Denying-Pupil-Barristers-Entry.pdf">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden Chambers is delighted to announce the election of two deputy heads of chambers, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/sarah-harrison/">Sarah Harrison</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/sara-anning/">Sara Anning</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sarah was first elected as deputy head of chambers in 2023. Following her re-election, she will continue in her role as a director of Plowden Facilities. Sarah was also the head of the chancery and commercial team at Parklane Plowden until 2023.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sara Anning was appointed as a Recorder (Family) on the North Eastern Circuit and has sat as a Fee Paid Judge of the Mental Health Tribunal since 2018. As deputy head of chambers, Sara will lead on career progression for members of chambers and pastoral issues.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Commenting on their elections, head of chambers, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/elizabeth-hodgson/">Elizabeth Hodgson</a>, said:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“I am delighted to be supported as head of chambers by Sara and Sarah, who are not only leading barristers in their respective practice areas but have exceptional skills that make them well-suited for the specific roles that each will fulfil as deputy heads of chambers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“Their appointments are significant for Chambers, not least because for the first time the head and deputy heads of chambers are an all women team.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“I look forward to working closely with them, our head of teams, and our senior management team as we continue to develop our ambitious and progressive Chambers for the benefit of our clients, our staff and our members.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:list {"ordered":true} --> <ol class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>This handout provides a practical summary of the Pathfinder model which will commence for all cases issued from the 3^{rd of} June 2025 in West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield). This handout is aimed to help barristers, solicitors, and all professionals involved in private family law.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ol> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>What will Pathfinder mean?</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Pathfinder’s commencement from 3^rd June will in West Yorkshire mean an end to the existing Child Arrangements Programme (CAP) until at least March 2026 and, if it goes onto be permanently implemented, forever.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The rules and guidance are set out in: <a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach">https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/new-practice-direction-36z-pilot-scheme-private-law-reform-investigative-approach</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The intention is that Judges will adopt a proactive, inquisitorial approach, often referred to as a 'lean in' model.<strong> </strong>This problem-solving approach will be familiar to many as mirroring that adopted in the well-established FDAC courts. That approach will be at the forefront of the court's mind in dealing with private law applications under the pilot. Where cases are allocated (at GK1 and GK2 Gatekeeping hearings) to the adjudication track and listed for a determination hearing, the expectation is that the parties will engage the problem solving approach and avoid an adversarial approach to the litigation that sadly became all too familiar under CAP. Beginning this with Judge led conciliation before any submissions is a significant feature of the adjudication track and the problem-solving approach. It is not like the conciliation that takes place at a FHDRA. It is informed by the CIR and the IDVA service where domestic abuse is a feature of the case. Those assessments allow the court to take an evidence-based approach to problem solving and helping the parties to reach agreement.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>That judge led conciliation is recorded as <strong>an essential component</strong> of <strong>the decision hearing i</strong>n the Gatekeeping order and is ordered to take place before submissions or evidence is heard in the anticipation that settlement is possible. </li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Experience in the early pilot areas establishes that it is effective on refocusing the parties on the children and their welfare and what is achievable within the life of the proceedings. It is also worth noting that by virtue of FPR 2010 Rule 1.4(g) it has for quite some time already been part of the court's duty to help the parties settle the whole or part of the case.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>In each case allocated at Gatekeeping to the adjudication track a single Child Impact Report (CIRs) is ordered and prepared by CAFCASS. The CIR replaces safeguarding letters and Section 7 reports, the idea is that this is placing the child’s voice at the forefront of proceedings.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The Pathfinder process begins when an application (C100 or C1A) is issued.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The court reviews the application and sends an order to Cafcass (Day 1).</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Safeguarding checks are requested and completed within seven working days.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The case is allocated to a Family Court Adviser. The level of intervention is decided and reviewed by a Cafcass manager.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>If a full assessment is required, the FCA completes a Child Impact Report within 40 working days, minus the seven used for screening.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Children are seen (if it is decided it’s a good idea) in person within 15 working days from allocation. In pilots elsewhere 67% of children were seen (compared to just 30% of children under the CAP being seen at any stage)</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The child’s views and their views on the recommendations appear early in the CIR. CIRs provide recommendations upfront, with consent, photographs. CIRs differ from Section 7 reports by beginning with the child’s lived experience, not parental narratives. safeguarding, agency input, and direct work findings are integrated into one report. The focus is analytical, with less emphasis on conflicting narratives.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>In cases where domestic abuse is a feature, IDFIS (Independent Domestic Violence and Family Support) workers support those who say this is a feature during proceedings. They provide Cafcass with structured assessments and insights into what they have called ‘primary victim dynamics.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The theory is that these front-loaded assessments enable faster and better-informed decisions.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The need for any Fact-finding hearings is reduced due to early risk identification and intervention.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The CIR informs the <strong>Decision Hearing</strong>. This Decision Hearing replaces the traditional First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA). The intention is that Final orders can be made or further directions given at that Decision Hearing.<strong> NB the intention is that this Decision Hearing is – just as it sounds - in many cases the one and only hearing – so one at which a Final Order maybe made</strong></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Until Pathfinder has ‘bedded in ‘practitioners should be alerted to risks inherent in how CIRs are prepared – for example where a child is interviewed at the resident parent's home, especially if that parent is present or nearby. The setting may influence the child's responses due to perceived pressure, loyalty conflicts, or coaching. Best practice recommends conducting interviews in neutral settings and without the resident parent present, using open-ended and non-leading questions but there is no guidance currently published suggesting that these interviews are conducted neutrally so it maybe that they are not.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>The Pilot findings</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>In other areas where the pilot schemes have operated the average case conclusion time under Pathfinder was 16 weeks, compared to 67 weeks under CAP. There are no reported statistics yet of what proportion of those cases ended with one parent having no contact or any other statistics on outcome yet available.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Only 1–2 fact-finding hearings were listed per area during the pilot quarter.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>It is suggested that Children participate earlier and more meaningfully in proceedings under Pathfinder.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>As there are fewer hearings, it’s important to understand that this first ever hearing may well also be the last and so it is essential to make it count – judge led conciliation is intended to settle the case, if it doesn’t then submissions should be far more focused on the intended result and child-centred. Representatives and their Clients should be prepared for early child engagement and potential judicial conversations leading to a final order at this first ‘Decision’ hearing.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Have there already been appeals in Pathfinder cases in earlier pilot areas?</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Re A and B Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWFC 284 (B)/ <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/284.html">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/284.html</a> was a case decided in Wales ( where Pathfinder started on 29^th April 2024) the issue was whether the children should go to a school in Wales or in England .</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The order appealed was against a decision of the lay justices ordering the children to attend a school not recommended in the Child Impact Report (CIR). Procedural and analytical failures in handling a Pathfinder adjudication track case were identified.CIRs under Pathfinder are not s.7 reports but carry <em>substantial evidential weight</em> and they are usually the <em>primary welfare evidence</em> in Pathfinder adjudication track cases. Courts must not disregard a CIR <em>without clear, reasoned justification</em>. Effectively -A CIR recommendation should be followed unless a “good reason” for departure is clearly stated and supported by evidence. In this case no reasons were given for departure from that recommendation. Further, the welfare checklist (Children Act 1989, s1(3)) must be <em>actively considered</em>. Lay justices in this case failed to <em>analyse or balance the children’s differing views</em>, or the practical impact on each parent. Courts should either <em>expressly or clearly implicitly</em> address the welfare checklist when determining outcomes.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>&nbsp;Procedural Fairness and the CIR Author</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>A further issue in the case was that the father’s solicitor <em>unilaterally contacted</em> the Cafcass officer with questions post-GK2, without court permission or prior disclosure to mother. The response was disclosed <em>only on the morning of the hearing</em>. Parties <strong>must not bypass</strong> case management directions. Any challenge to the CIR must be: Made within <strong>7 days of GK2</strong> by applying to vary the order, and the party either seeks the officer’s attendance, or requests permission to pose written questions.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Judge-Led Conciliation Is Mandatory in the Adjudication Track</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The most important failing however in this case was the failure to have judge led conciliation which the adjudication track <strong>requires before submissions or evidence</strong>. In this case, it was <strong>entirely missed</strong>, undermining Pathfinder’s problem-solving ethos.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Practice Point:</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Parties and judges must ensure <strong>conciliation takes place</strong>, unless it is considered inappropriate after submissions; and that decision is <strong>clearly recorded</strong> with reasons.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>&nbsp;GK2 Orders and Variation Rights</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>GK2 hearings are conducted by the court on paper. The order:<ul><li>Sets the track (e.g., adjudication),</li></ul><ul><li>Limits evidence,</li></ul><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>States whether the Cafcass officer will attend.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Parties have a <strong>7-day right</strong> (under FPR r.4.3) to apply to vary a GK2 order.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Practitioners must advise clients of this right, especially where evidence may need expanding.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Departure from CIR Requires Active Judicial Engagement</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Judges must not just identify perceived flaws in the CIR—they must:<ul><li>Resolve evidential disputes themselves,</li></ul><ul><li>Fill gaps using available parental evidence, or</li></ul><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Seek further input where necessary.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A court <strong>cannot substitute analysis</strong> without clearly showing how it reached its conclusion.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Pathfinder encourages:<em> Problem-solving, non-adversarial</em> approach, Front-loaded investigation via CIR, Avoidance of escalation into contested residence litigation. All professionals must work to reduce conflict and avoid missing procedural steps that can widen disputes and increase harm to children.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Is there a viable alternative to Pathfinder in a Private Law Children case?</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Time will tell how Pathfinder fits in West Yorkshire. Non court based dispute resolution (NCDR) offers alternatives to Pathfinder such as mediation or arbitration or both together – med-arb where mediation resolves as much as possible with an arbitrator then making a decision on the matters that remain in issue.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>For a fully reasoned judgment in any dispute over for example - live with/spend time, relocation, choice of school cases, specific issue order - the alternative to court under Pathfinder is to refer the case to an arbitrator or &nbsp;‘private judge’ for a binding and reasoned decision by Arbitration . Referral is under the Children Scheme to the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators ( IFLA) for Arbitration: <a href="https://ifla.org.uk">https://ifla.org.uk</a> &nbsp;<a href="https://ifla.org.uk/search-for-an-arbitrator/">https://ifla.org.uk/search-for-an-arbitrator/</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The equivalent of an indication by way of private FDR in a children case may also be a prudent move – ‘Early Neutral Evaluation ‘– involves consideration and indication on the merits of a case by an experienced barrister or solicitor pre-issue so there is a realistic view of the outcome.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>For further information about any of the above please contact <a href="mailto:Julia.Nelson@parklaneplowden.co.uk">Julia.Nelson@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Our Public Law team are thrilled to be hosting Casey Baldwin&nbsp;from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dnalegal.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DNA Legal</a> to discuss 'Challenging Expert Toxicology Evidence including the issues around racial bias in drug testing and Soberlink - our new Alcohol Monitoring device.'</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Registration will be from 4:30pm with the talk starting at 5pm and finishing at 6pm. There is an opportunity for drinks and networking with our Public Law team after the event.&nbsp; </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Please confirm your attendance by emailing our events team:&nbsp;<a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em><strong>Time:</strong>&nbsp;4:30pm - 6pm<br><strong>Location:</strong>&nbsp;Parklane Plowden Chambers, 19 Westgate, LS1 2RD</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are pleased to announce that Parklane Plowden pupil, Avaia Williams, has again had an article published in the Family Law Journal (April 2025).</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In this article, Avaia explores two recent High Court decisions, with wholly unique backgrounds, in which members of chambers Martin Kingerley KC, Rebecca Musgrove, and Nathaniel Garner acted respectively. In both A Local Authority v W [2024] EWFC 350 ('Re W') and A Local Authority v C [2024] EWFC 336 ('Re C'), the children’s mothers had died in tragic circumstances leaving nobody able to exercise parental responsibility.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A key theme within both judgments was whether harm caused pre-birth could be attributed to a parent who is deceased when the date for proceedings having been issued is post-death. In Re W, the mother took her own life whilst the baby was in utero, thus creating a lacuna whereby for a period of time, post mother’s death but before the child’s birth, there were no legal people in existence. In Re C, the mother also took her own life via a house fire, in the process almost killing C, here an issue arose whereby the Local Authority only issued proceedings a month later.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mr Justice Peel found in Re W that:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“The court may not have jurisdiction until the child is born, but in my judgment the court is entitled, when considering threshold, to take into account the parental care given to the child before birth, even if the parent is dead at the relevant date point of either protective measures starting or at the point of application. If the question posed is: “can the care given by the parent encompass care given to a child in utero” I suggest that the answer, in principle, is yes.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>And noted in Re C:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>“. . . the attributability requirement is not to be confined to, or aligned with, the date of the application. C was at the date of the application suffering significant harm. That harm was, on the evidence currently available, attributable to the actions of her mother a mere 7 days previously. It would be extraordinary if, in such a situation, the Local Authority could not take steps to protect the child. It would lead to the anomalous situation that the court would not be able even to inquire into threshold, however, desirable that might be, or seek protective orders. The purpose of Part IV of the Act is to enable children who are suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm caused by parents to be protected from that harm by Local Authority intervention. To neuter s31 because the parental perpetrator of harm is no longer alive would be an unexpected, and unfortunate consequence. But in my judgment that is not the intention of the Act, nor is it what the Act says. A plain reading of the words in s31(2)(b) that the harm must be attributable to “the care given to the child” must include past care, i.e before the date of the application, which led to the application itself. The wording does not expressly add “at the time of the application” or some such rider. Nor does it say that a parent must be alive at the time of the application. If my analysis is correct, then it matters not whether the parent is alive, or dead, or missing. What matters is whether the LA can establish (i) harm at the date of the application (or, if earlier, when protective measures implemented and carried through to the date of the application) and (ii) attributability of that harm i.e that it is a consequence of parental acts or omissions.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Avaia explores the impact and potential consequences of these two judgments, questioning whether Parliament intended for unborn children to be considered in the way that Mr Justice Peel allowed for, a question which raises legitimate concern given the legal definition of a foetus was not clarified in law until after the drafting of the Children Act 1989.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The court also relied on the judgment in Re M [1994] 2 FLR 577 which causes concern that the goal posts in relation to threshold may have been moved; drug or alcohol use in utero to establish a basis for pre-birth harm almost always arises as an issue as being a risk of significant harm for the future, not necessarily relied upon as a sole condition or actual harm caused – to consider a hypothetical where a mother uses drugs or alcohol for the first 5 months of pregnancy, she then stops completely and it is agreed she has made a full recovery, upon birth the baby has drug and/or alcohol related concerns, is threshold established? Prior to the judgments of Peel J, it would have been more readily argued no, now, the situation is not so clear.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For more about the judgments and potential implications in practice, and to read the discussion, you can find Avaia’s full article in Family Law Journal (April 2025 issue) <a href="https://plus.lexis.com/uk/document/?pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials-uk%2Furn:contentItem:6FHB-X6W3-RSP5-648C-00000-00&amp;selectedTocLevelKey=TAABAABAAKAAC&amp;crid=1c13272e-a979-4a69-9025-d4faca8557a8&amp;cbc=1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/avaia-williams-pupil/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Avaia Williams</a> is a second-six family and COP pupil and is quickly building a busy children law and Health and Welfare practice. He has already acted in multi-day final hearings and complex capacity matters.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/rebecca-musgrove/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rebecca Musgrove</a> is a family and Court of Protection barrister who often acts in lengthy and complex proceedings and regularly appears in the High Court. She has particular expertise in Deprivation of Liberty cases concerning children.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/nathaniel-garner/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nathaniel Garner</a> is a specialist family practitioner, with emphasis on serious and complex cases involving children. He is recognised by Chambers and Partners for his exceptional work and is often instructed in high profile cases on Circuit.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/martin-kingerley-kc/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Martin Kingerley KC</a> is a door tenant who took silk in 2020 and was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2023. He is instructed in some of the most serious and complex public law cases and is an expert on matters concerning surrogacy and conception.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Join <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/daniel-pitt/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Daniel Pitt</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/alex-taylor/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Alex Taylor</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/charlotte-wilce/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Charlotte Wilce</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/patrick-hulley/">Patrick Hulley</a>, and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/richard-harrington/">Richard Harrington</a> from Parklane Plowden's family team for a Family Finance &amp; Children Law Update.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Light snacks and refreshments will be served.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Time:</strong> 2pm<br><strong>Location:</strong> Sheffield and District Law Society, 8 Campo Lane, Sheffield, S1 2EF</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If you would like to attend, please contact <a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk." target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</strong></a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The language used in legal proceedings can have a profound and enduring impact on everyone involved, particularly within family cases, documents such as thresholds build a stage for care proceedings, and case summaries and openings set the tone in private disputes.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For many years, the phrase “committed suicide” was routinely employed to describe the act of ending one’s own life, it continues to be used significantly. Such usage stems from an era when suicide was deemed both a criminal offence and a moral failing. Despite the fact that the Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised suicide in England and Wales, this outdated terminology persists, carrying with it undertones of wrongdoing and judgement.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Family proceedings regularly require the court, legal and children professionals, parents, families, and children themselves to confront difficult and emotional subjects, including in many cases a party’s suicidal ideation, attempts, or the tragic death of a loved one by suicide. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>When these events are discussed – in written submissions, thresholds, case summaries, oral hearings and questioning – the phrase “committed suicide” can reinforce the notion that a criminal, sinful or immoral act has taken place. It can also exacerbate the distress of bereaved family members, who may already feel guilt, shame, or confusion around their loss. In a modern legal framework that appreciates the complexity of mental health challenges, it is more fitting to use language that reflects empathy and neutrality, rather than implying culpability.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>By adopting phrases such as “died by suicide,” “ended their life,” or “attempted suicide” legal practitioners acknowledge the profound despair and social or psychological factors that may have contributed to a person’s actions, rather than suggesting criminality or any degree of blame. These more sensitive choices of words also align with contemporary efforts to destigmatise mental health difficulties, recognising that individuals who feel driven to suicide need compassionate support rather than judgement.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In family court proceedings, especially those involving young children, the written record of events endures long after the hearing has concluded. The documents placed before the court can resurface in a child’s life later on, often when they reach adulthood, and the language used in those records may shape how they perceive their parent’s or relative’s struggles, possibly shaping their own struggles. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If children discover references to a loved one as having “committed” an act akin to a crime, they may feel that person is being condemned or blamed, which can compound the emotional toll on a family already grappling with tragedy. In contrast, a neutral phrase such as “she died by suicide” conveys the difficult reality without suggesting guilt, offering a more measured and supportive tone for the child who might later read these reports.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>When speaking in open court, counsel and judges alike can maintain a respectful atmosphere by avoiding language laden with historical stigma. Simple adjustments – saying “she took her life in June 2022” or “he attempted suicide following a period of acute depression” – allow the court to focus on the relevant facts of the case without further burdening those who have suffered a distressing loss. This approach does not obscure the gravity of what has occurred; rather, it upholds the dignity of everyone involved and fosters an environment in which mental health issues can be addressed more openly.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Some are likely to ask why such a seemingly minor shift in vocabulary matters, to consider this hill “woke”, or question whether this truly constitutes an essential “hill to die on” in the midst of complex family proceedings. Yet the language we choose to employ sets the tone of our interactions, the record we leave behind, and the compassion we show to those enduring profound pain. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Family cases are often among the most emotionally charged in the legal system, and the documents emanating from these proceedings can resonate for years to come. Ensuring that our words reflect empathy, and an up-to-date understanding of mental health challenges is therefore not merely a linguistic preference; it is a crucial aspect of safeguarding the emotional well-being of individuals and families well beyond the conclusion of a case. In short, professionals have a greater obligation to those involved in proceedings than simply offering advice and representation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Ultimately, by moving away from phrases that connote wrongdoing, legal professionals can better serve the interests of justice and humanity alike. In doing so, they acknowledge that suicide, decriminalised half a century ago, remains a profoundly tragic outcome of an individual’s suffering, rather than an act deserving of blame. This small but significant change in language supports a more compassionate discourse, helping to ensure that families in the throes of crisis are met with the sensitivity and support they so urgently require.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>___</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/avaia-williams-pupil/">Avaia</a> has volunteered with the Nightline Association and ShoutUK as a crisis intervention worker, supporting over 150 individuals in mental health crises, and has delivered talks to charity groups, schools, and government departments on the impact of youth mental health on safeguarding.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->