Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast

Wherever you are in the country, it is only a matter of time until child focussed courts are coming, so you need to know about them. We are joined by Angela Killa (JCP solicitors) and Elizabeth McGrath KC (3PB) to tell us about how to run a case in a child focussed case. Angela starts with giving a rundown of how child focused courts function: ApplicationInitial Gatekeeping (in the absence of the parties)Child Impact Report, plus potentially referrals to domestic abuse serves and DASH risk assessmentSafeguarding Gatekeeping Appointment (in the absence of the parties) Single decision hearing where possible, if not possible other directions (e.g. interim  hearing, fact-finding, s7 report, statements) leading to final hearingAngela tells us that it is really important to frontload the work and have the evidence available before you issue proceedings, because there will be no time after proceedings are issued.  Be warned that in certain parts of the country, only 7 days is allowed for statements to be produced. Angela tells us how it is crucial that you add much more detail into the C100 than previously, given the limited opportunity to put evidence and your client’s case before the court.  Equally much more care needs to be given to the C1A getting allegations correct and ensuring it sets out comprehensively what evidence is available; consider asking for a direction to be allowed to file it.  If there are relevant witnesses consider documenting what evidence they can provide and why it is relevant in the application, as well as asking for a direction to file their evidence. Angela and Liz agree it is better to have Counsel involved before proceedings are issued to provide advice on the application, evidence and directions sought.  Ensure that you have a conference arranged for when the child impact report is filed because there is likely only going to be 7-days for Counsel to identify whether they need to cross-examine the Officer, what arguments they seek to run and for the C2 to be filed seeking the Officer’s attendance at the final hearing. If you are representing a respondent, consider filing a response to ensure your client’s case is available before the child impact report is filed. Liz tell us about how to manage high risk cases that may involve serious allegations of abuse.  She reminds us that whilst the aim of the model is to remove adversarial, contested hearings the arbiter of the facts remains the Judge, so advocates need to be alive to when the Cafcass Officer has usurped that role. Liz talks about the importance of written advocacy at decision hearings. Angela explains the importance of gathering evidence before the court process when dealing with applications for specific issues like changing schools or relocation cases.  Again you need to say in the application that you have those documents, and you would like to file them so that the Judge considers that at the Initial Gatekeeping hearing.  In respect of application for assessments, for example a psychological assessment, a C2 needs to be filed setting out why it is necessary to have expert assessment. Remind yourself of the case law:Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/38?query=o+Re+Y+%28Experts+Alienating+Behaviour%3A+The+Modern+Approach%29+%5B2026%5D+EWFC+38Re H (Children: Expertise of Witness) [2026] EWCA Civ 249https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/249?query=Re+H+%28Children%3A+Expertise+Witness%29+%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+249 We then to go on to discuss the pros and cons for the system. Resolution has conducted a survey to gather early practitioner experiences can be found here. Both Liz and Angela agree that this is a brilliant system for straight forward cases where parents are unable to agree the precise division of care/ handovers/ holiday arrangements.  The challenge is ensuring that the other cases, which do require fact-finding, or experts, receive appropriate case management to achieve a just outcome.

This is the start of a series into enforcing orders; this part focuses on enforcing financial remedy orders. We are joined by Christopher Stirling (Field Court Chambers) and Kara Swift (Family Law in Partnership) who breathe life into this topic. Chris starts with telling us that recitals that deal with the payment of money are enforceable: Austin v Haynes [2021] EWCA Civ 1919 per Moylan LJ. However, be careful about how you are drafting the recital to make sure that they are not conditional or incapable of definition.   In respect of property adjustment orders, Chris reminds us that they take effect immediately in equity once DA/Final Order is made: Mountenay v Treharne [2003] Ch 135.  He also reminds us of the ability of the Court at the time of the final hearing to provide for deadlines for executing documents in default of which an application can be made ex parte to direct that a conveyancing solicitor or Judge should sign in the place of the defaulting party.  Kara then reminds us that orders for sale pursuant to S.24A of the MCA allows for orders for sale to be made at any time on or after the making of a financial remedy order making it useful standalone relief.  She reminds us that a lump sum is a simple debt.  It doesn’t take priority over any other debt, unless it is supported by a default order for sale.  Kara and Chris move on to discuss charging orders.  Note, there are no formal time limits for making charging order – see Lowsley v Forbes [1999] 1 AC 329 – though any interest claimed on sums charged is limited to 6 years – s.24(1) LA 1980 – nor is there need to seek any permission after 6 years like some other forms of execution: see Frankl-Rietti v Cheltenham & Gloucester plc [2011] EWCA Civ 524 per Rimer LJ @ [21] – and once obtained have an indefinite “shelf life” – CA refused to set aside charging order made 16 years previously in Yorkshire Bank Finance v Mulhall [2008] EWCA Civ 1156 They are made via a 2 stage process – interim and final order – interim order usually an ex parte process – though can be made immediately at time of judgment/order – see Mostyn J in Green v Adams [2017] 2 FLR 1413 (though if lump sum may be more practical to make default order for sale). Can get charging order where judgment debtor has some interest in charged asset and it is not necessary to establish the extent of that interest at stage of charging order -  Walton v Alman [2017] 1 FLR 927 .  Kara tells us that 3rd party debt order – interim and final - is a mechanism to secure funds ahead of enforcing the direct payment of them to the applicant by the third party holding the funds. Note, A v Z (No 2) (Interim Third Party Debt Order), where an interim order was made against a party’s solicitors’ client account.  Enforcing costs orders is like any other lump sum, but it must be liquidated to be enforceable i.e. you need to have agreed the amount or had it assessed after on detailed or summary basis. You do not have to wait for the final order of the divorce.   Periodical payments order can be enforced by an attachment of earnings order.  They can be made as part of the original final order, if someone has been defaulting or diverting income. Generally, there is no provision for interest - TW v TM (Minors). They then talk us through:Warrants of control – the bailiffs/ Enforcement OfficersJudgment summons see Barclay v Barclay [2022] EWHC 2026 (Fam) in respect of the burden of proof;Receivers – as a last resort if there are no other methods and proportionate.   Blight v Brewster Orders – compelling a party to draw from a private pension;Thwaite jurisdiction – the power to vary executory orders where unjust not to do so 

Resolution’s National Conference in 2026 kicked off with our keynote session looking at the impact of AI in the justice system, including the benefits of being able to deliver justice more efficiency and the risk of it perpetuating bias that exists in the system.   We wanted to find a topic that would give our audience lots to were privileged to be joined by The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick and Professor Rosemary Hunter King Counsel (Lead author of the Harm Panel 2020 report and co-author of the Everyday Business report 2025).  Judge tells us that the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Birss is the lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, with an allocated senior for criminal, civil and family justice.  Mr Justice McKendrick is the lead judge for AI in family justice.   The Judge makes the point that AI is transforming society, and justice needs to keep up with that development.  The judiciary already has access to its own confidential AI system, and guidance was issued to the judiciary in October 2025: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdfThat system can summarise bundles, summarising judgments for litigants with special educational needs, AI to translate or transcript audio, as AI hallucination checker.  However, judicial decisions always remain the responsibility of the Judge. In the same way that the High Court judiciary already have access to a judicial assistant, but decisions are made by the Judge.  Rosemary explains that there are deliberate biases in the system which we all think is a good thing, for example the child’s welfare being the paramount consideration is a form of bias.  The concern therefore only arises in respect of biases that give a party an unjustified disadvantage.  Rosemary gives example of the research in the Harm report about the ‘pro-contact culture’, which is a form of bias.  Rosemary makes the point that over-reliance on AI could lead to jurisprudential ossification i.e. continuing to use the determination that is already available rather than responding to adapting views.  The Judge referred to a speech by The President of the King’s Bench division https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-president-of-the-kings-bench-division-the-mayflower-lecture-2025/The difference between prediction and reasoning.  That lecture goes on to look at the fact that AI is predicting based on past outcomes, whereas Judges are reasoning.  Therefore, the Judge argues there is always a difference between the judicial outcome of reasoning to the outcome and AI predicting the likely outcome based on previous data.  We went on to consider a number of judicial lectures including: the Master of the Rolls speech on Artificial Intelligence where the Master of the Rolls opined that incivil justice routine judicial decision-making could be informed or directed by machines https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-master-of-the-rolls-artificial-intelligence-and-the-judiciary/Lord Briggs, Justice of the Supreme Court https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_lord_briggs_20052026_de46afe657.pdfFinally, we concluded with a discussion about the debate in the House of Lords about the future of financial remedy law. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-11-10/debates/1492EA41-F82F-4148-A8AB-C0F8CB5B78B7/FinancialProvisionOnDivorce We conclude with wondering whether AI is going to fuel litigation and driving litigants to issue, or whether it will help litigants to find consensual solutions and remove unrealistic expectations, as yet it is impossible to know. 

Are you up to date with how to apply for non-molestation orders?  Jenny Beck KC (Beck Fitzgerald), and Charlotte Baker (4PB) join us to bring us up-to-date, and discuss Family Law Act Remedies.  Jenny was the Chair of the Family Justice Council that wrote the report providing Best Practice Guidance*.  She starts by telling us why the guidance was necessary: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FJC-Best-Practice-Guidance-for-Practitioners-Making-an-Application-for-a-Protective-Injunction-under-the-FLA-1996-with-Annex-1.pdf Charlotte then explains how the President’s guidance should change our practice: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/the-pfds-guidance-2026-non-molestation-orders-under-the-family-law-act-1996-and-the-fjcs-best-practice-guidance-for-practitioners-on-making-an-application-for-a-protective-injuncti/ Charlotte and Jenny talk about the new draft orders.  The orders no longer have the standard terms ‘not to use or threaten violence’ and ‘not to harass, intimidate and pester’.  Jenny tells us they were removed because using and threatening violence is a criminal offence and not what these orders should be about, and it is hard to prove harassing, intimidating and pestering someone.  However, she makes clear that these terms can be added back into the draft order if required.  Jenny tells us that the respondent’s details should be included on the face of the order to make the order effective.  Jenny tells us about the procedural change in the President’s guidance.  Namely, that the initial application should be heard on the papers, if that is not accepted it should be listed within a day for the applicant to make representations.  Charlotte tells us that when making an application for a non-molestation order that you need to be able to explain what is happening right now that justifies protection and why it is that an order is required.  We discuss high acrimony cases and what to do when an application for a non-molestation order is made, and the respondent attends Court accusing the applicant of being just as bad. Both Charlotte and Jenny raise concerned about the times when Judges have tried to resolve matters by cross-undertakings.  We finally discuss whether practitioners should be advising their client to go to the Police for a DAPO, why it is that clients may prefer not to the police and why it is this form of remedy needs to exist for victim-survivors who prefer not to make a complaint to the police. *Although Jenny joined us in her personal capacity today. 

Simon and Anita were privileged to be invited to speak at Resolution’s annual Financial Advisors conference. They were joined by Steve Hennessy (Beeswax Wealth Management) and Angela Lake-Carroll (ALC associates) to discuss how financial advisors see economic abuse in their day-to-day work with families.  The full detail of the discussion is in The Review in an article by Shalini Kanap (Her Financial Planning): https://resolution.org.uk/the-review/current-issue/talking-family-law-live-podcast-recording/ We did take two Slidos in the room in the room which verified what we all expected that Financial Advisors frequently see one party restricting the other party’s access to information about the finances when they separate, and that they frequently see delaying/ avoidance tactics when it comes to implementing pension shares.  We hope this podcast was part of the start of the Financial Advisors coming together to look at how they can protect their clients from on-going abuse.