Does the family court system accommodate neurodivergent parents fairly? Ciara Coleman and Cleo Perry KC, barristers for the applicant in JX (A Child), examine how neurodivergence intersects with child arrangements, parental responsibility and welfare decisions, and offer a practical checklist for legal practitioners to ensure inclusivity.
The family court has only relatively recently developed a set of tools to assist neurodivergent adults to participate properly in family proceedings. The case of Re JX (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing) [2025] EWFC 459 (B) provides a useful example of integrating neurodiversity-informed participation measures into the conduct of a private law domestic abuse fact-finding hearing.
The case itself involved complex and detailed cross allegations of a serious nature. The mother had a diagnosis of ADHD, and the court had seen the psychological assessment confirming the same. The court approached this hidden vulnerability carefully and made the necessary participation directions. These were set down at the PTR having considered FPR 2010 Part 3A and PD3AA, alongside the Family Justice Council (FJC) Guidance on Neurodiversity for Practitioners, the Advocate’s Gateway Toolkit 5, and the Equal Treatment Bench Book.
Notably, the judge treated neurodivergence as a form of vulnerability which may be hidden, in the sense that a party’s courtroom presentation might not obviously signal the cognitive or executive functioning challenges underpinning it. In this case both the judge and the assessing independent social worker were alive to how this parent’s neurodiversity might present and no professional mistook neurodivergent traits as safeguarding issues.
ADHD-associated features include attention regulation difficulties, working memory impairment, processing speed variation, impulsivity, fatigue, and dysregulation under stress. These can all affect the ability to give coherent evidence and respond in cross-examination. Without adjustments, there is a well-recognised risk that the court may wrongly interpret neurodivergence as evasiveness, unreliability, or ‘poor presentation’.
Professionals may mistake these traits as an unwillingness or inability to work in partnership and therefore all parties and instructed experts must be alive to the features of neurodiversity, particularly those arising in stressful situations.
Therefore, front-loaded identification of vulnerability and a structured hearing plan are crucial where cognitive load is likely to be high for all parties, and particularly for participants with neurodivergent traits.
Against that backdrop, the case is a helpful reminder that vulnerability does not begin and end with intimidation or trauma (important though those are). Neurodivergence requires the court and advocates to manage structure, pacing, and cognitive burden.
The legal framework, participation directions, and implementation
We anchored our approach in a constellation of authorities and guidance which practitioners will increasingly recognise as the core toolkit for neurodiversity cases:
- FPR 2010 r.3A and PD3AA (Vulnerable persons: participation and evidence);
- FJC Guidance on Neurodiversity for Practitioners;
- Advocate’s Gateway Toolkit 5 (identified expressly as helpful in establishing “foundations” and conditions for evidence); and
- The Equal Treatment Bench Book.
We suggest that there is now an expectation that neurodiversity will be treated as a mainstream participation issue, not an exceptional one. It is crucial to go to the specific detailed guidance, rather than treating Part 3A as a generic ‘vulnerability’ box-ticking exercise. A domestic violence fact-finding should not take place without an explicit participation analysis where neurodivergence is in play.
In this specific case, we undertook a detailed approach to implementing the ground rules in practice. We did not simply refer to a suite of standard measures to assist, but got creative. This included creating a visual timeline for the mother, to assist her in being able to pinpoint and recall certain events amongst the backdrop of a complex, abusive relationship. When thinking about ground rules and what might be useful, it is all and any to assist a neurodivergent party’s ability to engage meaningfully with the hearing process.
The following were intended to assist the mother to participate and to give her best evidence, including:
- Agreeing topics for questioning (which assists predictability and structure).
- Cue cards indicating stress levels (a classic tool for scaffolding executive functioning).
- Regular breaks (reducing cognitive fatigue and dysregulation).
Challenges for neurodivergent parents and the necessity for effective case-management
For neurodivergent participants the most significant barrier is often not comprehension, but organisation, sequencing and stress tolerance. This can be improved by structured advocacy and judicial management.
There must be a clear process for ensuring that vulnerabilities and neurodivergence are identified. The court should then consider whether or not there is a requirement for an intermediary, and if an intermediary is not sought, or not required, there should be robust alternative measures implemented.
It is also crucial to note that participation adjustments are not concessions on credibility or merits. Nor do they constitute special treatment. They are conditions for reliable evidence-giving and a fair hearing. Furthermore, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ for a parent with a neurodiversity, therefore it is important that participation directions are informed for each person individually.
A neurodivergent party may: give disorganised narrative, answer inconsistently, appear over-confident or oddly affective, struggle under rapid cross-examination, or appear distracted and non-responsive. Therefore, without neurodiversity-informed case management, those features can wrongly be transmuted into adverse credibility findings.
The practicalities
We suggest this practical checklist to effectively implement participation directions for those with a neurodiversity (and therefore a vulnerability):
- Identify neurodivergence early (FCFRA/assessments/GP/school/employment history).
- Record participation needs using the Family Procedure Rules Part 3A framework.
- Ground rules hearing (or structured PTR) to set:
- topic-based questioning,
- short questions, single propositions,
- time limits/blocks,
- planned breaks,
- cue cards and/or visual scaffolding.
- Consider intermediary explicitly; set timetable for an application if one is needed.
- Control volume and timing of documentary/audio evidence – neurodivergent parties are disproportionately harmed by late disclosure and sprawling evidence.
- Judicial self-direction on credibility: presentation ≠ reliability.
Conclusion
Neurodiversity should trigger structured participation planning, and advocates should be ready to deploy both the procedural framework and the specialist guidance to ensure the court can hear, test and evaluate evidence properly.
About the authors
Ciara Coleman joined Chambers as tenant in October 2025 after successfully completing her pupillage. Ciara accepts instructions across every aspect of Chambers’ practice. Prior to pupillage, Ciara worked as a County Court advocate and appeared in over 500 hearings, representing numerous clients in various civil matters in court.
Cleo Perry KC is a specialist public and private children’s law barrister and public law barrister. She is widely recognised for her expert handling of difficult cases involving complex evidence, allegations of violence or abuse, and cases involving an international element, including removal from the jurisdiction. Cleo also has a significant public inquiry practice, representing parties in long-running and complex public inquiries.
One Response
I find it astonishing that the legal system in care proceedings has access to professionals who are fully trained and qualified in understanding all aspects of neuro divergence (which frequently features co-occuring mental health issues and more than one form of neurodevelopmental condition). This access has been perpetually undermined, under funded and expert witness professionals treated as an expensive luxury or untrained charlatans.
It takes considerably more than. ‘toolkit’ to understand neuro divergence in the context of care proceedings and nor are solicitors, social workers, guardians, barristers or judges adequately trained in neuro divergence (which is almost never a single issue condition) to treat it as an area on which they can safely and equitably make decisions without expert advice.
I am quite sure that a highly trained mental health expert would not be seen to be in any way capable of conducting a legal case just by referring to a ‘toolkit’ of legal terms and issues. It is extremely concerning that complex mental health and neurodevelopmental issues are seen as fully understandable to professionals who have no professional expertise whatsoever in psychology or psychiatry – so much so that they can safely cover key issues determining the future of the children of those parents (who are more likely, genetically, to be neuro diverse themselves).
I have seen multiple extremely serious errors in differential diagnosis made by professionals who were not trained to assess neurodivergent parents or children which caused avoidable harm to families but if mental health experts are shut out of the process then these errors will not come to light.