Ashley Le-Core examines the Pathfinder pilot through the lens of research from the Centre for Justice Innovation, which has important implications for family lawyers.
Most family law professionals will by now have had some form of contact with the Pathfinder scheme. Pathfinder was developed directly from a report released in June 2020 by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases.
Whilst not all will have directly supported clients going through the process, the scheme has seen rapid expansion and development in the four years since its first introduction in a small number of courts. Most recently, the pilot was extended to the family courts in Portsmouth, Southampton, the Isle of Wight, Winchester, Basingstoke and Aldershot. It is anticipated that at the end of March, there will be a full review of the scheme, its successes and obstacles, ahead of a potential national rollout.
Pathfinder’s main goals
The Pathfinder scheme has two primary purposes:
- To ease the experience of domestic abuse victim-survivors by encouraging multi-agency communication, helping to prevent re-traumatisation through the court process and retelling of their experiences.
- To encourage a better experience for children whose parents are in court proceedings by understanding their wishes and feelings (age and capacity dependent).
The pilot has introduced several processes which have been designed to support those going through the family courts, especially where there have been allegations of domestic abuse, whether towards adults or children. The new model is designed to improve the process of information gathering, supporting better decision making as to potential intervention and proper reviews.
Importantly, Cafcass is involved from the ‘starting gun’ of a C100 application. A full safeguarding report (the Child Impact Report) is conducted before any court hearing takes place, not only to enable independent and professional appraisal of the case, but to understand and centralise the voice of the child. There has also been direct funding in place for domestic abuse services to provide support for the victim-survivors.
Feedback and review – The Centre for Justice Innovation report
Pathfinder has undergone reviews at every stage, and general feedback has seemed to be positive. Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, spoke of the Pathfinder scheme at the Resolution Conference in May 2025, saying:
“It has been greatly reassuring to meet with local domestic abuse professionals in each of the pilot court centres and to hear from them the view that Pathfinder is more effective in this regard [the protection of domestic abuse victims including children] than the current model of working.”
In January 2026, the Centre for Justice Innovation produced a report titled Private Law Pathfinder Pilot: Understanding the Experience of Children and Families, relaying the findings of a survey conducted across the second half 2024 of parents and carers, as well as some children through child-friendly methods, whose case had proceeded using the Pathfinder model.
The survey was limited to the Dorset and North Wales family court areas, so is not a full investigation of nationwide experiences. Nevertheless, the findings are interesting to examine.
The study found:
- Most people had positive experiences with Cafcass, including children.
- Fewer had positive experiences with judges and magistrates.
- Many felt their concerns regarding domestic abuse were downplayed or ignored by various agencies.
- Mixed responses on whether or how children’s wishes and feelings were taken into account in the final outcome.
- Some felt there were more opportunities to reduce the re-traumatisation the court process can sometimes evoke.
- Generally Pathfinder was more efficient than the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP) model that preceded it.
- Many parents expected to return to court after the review stage as it was rarely implemented if parent was unhappy with the outcome of proceedings.
The report is an important read for professionals to understand the reality of the impact on those clients going through the process and where there may be changes after a wider and in-depth review.
Overarching themes came through across the report that suggested a need for more clear processes and understanding, especially from the court side, of what the desired goals of Pathfinder look like in practice, and how that will differ between families.
There was a sense that while some progress has been made, there were opportunities to improve, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. Some parties reported concerns around how their stories were handled and allegations dealt with. The participants expressed that they felt trauma-informed approaches centred on being believed and their experiences as victims being validated by professionals, and for some the Pathfinder process was successful. In other cases, domestic abuse victim-survivors still suffered re-traumatisation.
It will require a more comprehensive investigation across all the pilot areas to understand more fully the experience of parents and children in children matters. However, family lawyers should be conscious especially in those pilot areas of how information from their clients is being gathered and shared. They should also be reassuring in speaking to clients and encourage engagement with professionals who can convey the wishes and feelings of children.
There are clearly mixed experiences with the Pathfinder pilot, but it is generally found to be a better model than CAP, which still exists in some family courts.
Conclusion
Family professionals should be up to date with the progress of the pilot and its role in their local area. This is a continuing time of adaptation and change, where family lawyers need to maintain pace and ensure they focus on the wellbeing and safety of clients and their children going through child arrangement proceedings. Early and intensive information gathering should be the new norm, and lawyers should be supporting with identifying potential risks. Out of court processes should be engaged with wherever safe to do so to reduce the length, cost and stress of cases, especially where children are involved.
It will be interesting to see where the Pathfinder scheme goes next, and I look forward to a thorough investigation of its successes and areas for growth in the coming months. I do feel this is a new chapter for the court process relating to child arrangements and I, for one, welcome it fully.
About the author
Ashley Le-Core is a partner at Stowe Family Law, based in the Tunbridge Wells office. He works across a range of family law matters. His expertise covers all areas of divorce and separation, specialising in complex children act proceedings, including those with an international element. Ashley is popular with colleagues and clients alike, known for his honest but compassionate advice. He is a regular commentator in the press.
