The Pathfinder pilot scheme is a necessary response to sustained pressure on the family courts. Its emphasis on early information-gathering and reduced adversarialism is well understood. However, in practice, there is a growing concern that the model risks prioritising speed over evidential robustness, potentially storing up issues for later challenge rather than resolving them at the outset. Alice Agobiani, associate family solicitor at Goughs Solicitors, considers whether the scheme in its current form risks displacing, rather than reducing, delay and asks what family lawyers can do to protect both procedural integrity and client relationships within it.
The Pathfinder pilot scheme was introduced to reduce delay and place children at the centre of private law proceedings. Yet for many practitioners, the reality is more complicated.
Early recommendations, limited evidential testing, and prolonged interim arrangements risk shifting delay elsewhere in the process rather than resolving it.
A shift in the family court landscape
Pathfinder has been introduced in response to continued pressure on the family courts. Its aims are difficult to criticise: earlier information gathering, a more investigative approach, and a stronger focus on children’s welfare are all familiar goals for practitioners.
However, as the scheme becomes more established, questions are emerging about whether it delivers those aims in practice. While it is intended to streamline proceedings and reduce conflict, there is concern that it may move delay rather than remove it.
For practitioners, this shift away from a traditional adversarial model has clear implications. It requires a change in approach to case strategy and client management from the very start of proceedings.
The weight of early recommendations
A key feature of Pathfinder is early involvement from Cafcass and other agencies. Their initial assessments and recommendations can influence the direction of a case before evidence has been fully tested.
While early intervention can help identify risk sooner, there is a risk that early impressions carry too much weight. Once a narrative forms, it can be difficult to change, particularly where the court is focused on progressing cases quickly. This can disadvantage parties whose position needs fuller examination.
Practitioners must therefore act quickly. Issues that might previously have developed over time now need to be identified at the outset. Gaps in evidence, inconsistencies, and safeguarding concerns must be raised early, as there may be fewer opportunities to revisit them later.
This front-loaded approach also increases pressure on clients, many of whom are already dealing with difficult circumstances and are unfamiliar with the process.
The risk of downstream litigation
There is also a concern that Pathfinder may lead to more disputes later on. Where decisions are made on limited evidence, there is a greater risk that they will be challenged in the future.
This is particularly relevant in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, parental alienation, or safeguarding issues, where the facts are often complex and contested. If parties feel key issues have not been properly explored, dissatisfaction can continue after proceedings end.
This may lead to applications to vary orders, appeals, or further litigation at a later stage. In trying to reduce delay early on, the system risks creating further disputes later.
For this reason, careful record-keeping is essential. Practitioners should ensure that concerns, proposals, and areas of disagreement are clearly documented, even where the court is trying to narrow issues early. A clear evidential record may be important if matters return to court.
Interim contact and the passage of time
Delays in child arrangements cases are often most significant when contact is paused while safeguarding concerns are investigated.
In some cases, parents may go three or four months without direct contact with their child during this period. Even where this is understandable on a protective basis, the passage of time can have a real impact. Relationships may weaken, routines may change, and positions can become more fixed before evidence is fully considered.
Practitioners should therefore consider whether strong interim arrangements are in place. Review hearings, indirect contact, or staged reintroduction plans may help avoid situations where time alone begins to shape the long-term outcome.
Keeping clients engaged in the process
Pathfinder also changes how clients experience proceedings. Under the traditional model, parties were more directly involved through statements, hearings and contested evidence. The investigative approach can leave some clients feeling further removed from decision-making.
This makes expectation management essential. Clients often struggle to understand why decisions are being delayed or why they are not being heard more directly, particularly where contact has stopped or allegations have been raised. Without clear advice, frustration can quickly turn into mistrust.
Regular communication is therefore key. Clients need clear explanations of how the process works, when their position will be considered, and what timescales are realistic. This is not only important for managing expectations but also for keeping clients engaged and confident in the process.
Fairness must remain central
Pathfinder reflects a genuine effort to improve outcomes for children and families in an overstretched system, and its aims are broadly well-founded. However, what matters is how the process works in practice, not just the intention behind it.
A focus on early resolution and efficiency can, in some cases, reduce fairness in the process or lead to decisions being challenged later.
Family practitioners, therefore, remain central to ensuring the process works properly. Active engagement, early identification of issues, and, where necessary, challenge to procedural decisions are essential safeguards.
If Pathfinder simply moves the delay to a later stage, it risks delivering speed without lasting resolution.
About the author
Alice Agobiani is an associate family solicitor at Goughs Solicitor soffering over nine years of experience in guiding clients through complex family law matters. Alice specialises in divorce, financial settlements, children-related disputes and matters involving domestic abuse.
