Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has recently assessed the potential merits of reviewing the weighting given to a child's views in child arrangement orders in cases where there is an unresolved disagreement between parents.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.
The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.
The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.
The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered changes to child arrangement orders that would affect child maintenance requirements for parents without custody.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.
The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.
The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.
The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November 2025 to Question 87080 on Child Arrangement Orders, if he will make such an assessment.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.
The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.
The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.
The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that women with acute mental health needs are held in appropriate settings in (a) Surrey and (b) Surrey Heath constituency.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
To ensure people with severe mental health needs access the right treatment in the right setting, the landmark Mental Health Bill, which is due to receive Royal Assent imminently, will introduce a new statutory time limit of 28 days for transfers from prison and other places of detention to hospital.
This time limit, together with operational improvements, aims to reduce unnecessary delays and deliver swifter access to treatment. The Bill will also stop courts temporarily detaining people with severe mental illness in prison as a ‘place of safety’ whilst awaiting a hospital bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act and will end the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. We recognise that delays in accessing hospital treatment can affect mental health stability and increase distress for individuals requiring acute care. Regional oversight arrangements and escalation processes are designed to minimise such delays and protect the safety and wellbeing of affected individuals. During any period of delay, prison mental health teams provide enhanced monitoring, therapeutic interventions and regular reassessment.
For individuals who do not meet the threshold for detention under the Mental Health Act, mental health care continues to be delivered within the prison environment in line with national clinical standards. This includes psychological therapies, medication management, risk assessment, crisis planning and ongoing reviews to ensure needs are met and that escalation is reconsidered where clinically indicated.
In addition to this, HMP Bronzefield, Downview and Send (in Surrey) have Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) Pathway services and Send has a Democratic Therapeutic Community. Women from across the estate can access these services if they meet the criteria for the pathway and offender managers can also refer women in.
The delivery of healthcare in prison is the responsibility of the NHS in England and Wales. Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust have delegated responsibility for the commissioning and management of pathways.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of delays in securing appropriate placements for women in custody in Surrey.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
To ensure people with severe mental health needs access the right treatment in the right setting, the landmark Mental Health Bill, which is due to receive Royal Assent imminently, will introduce a new statutory time limit of 28 days for transfers from prison and other places of detention to hospital.
This time limit, together with operational improvements, aims to reduce unnecessary delays and deliver swifter access to treatment. The Bill will also stop courts temporarily detaining people with severe mental illness in prison as a ‘place of safety’ whilst awaiting a hospital bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act and will end the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. We recognise that delays in accessing hospital treatment can affect mental health stability and increase distress for individuals requiring acute care. Regional oversight arrangements and escalation processes are designed to minimise such delays and protect the safety and wellbeing of affected individuals. During any period of delay, prison mental health teams provide enhanced monitoring, therapeutic interventions and regular reassessment.
For individuals who do not meet the threshold for detention under the Mental Health Act, mental health care continues to be delivered within the prison environment in line with national clinical standards. This includes psychological therapies, medication management, risk assessment, crisis planning and ongoing reviews to ensure needs are met and that escalation is reconsidered where clinically indicated.
In addition to this, HMP Bronzefield, Downview and Send (in Surrey) have Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) Pathway services and Send has a Democratic Therapeutic Community. Women from across the estate can access these services if they meet the criteria for the pathway and offender managers can also refer women in.
The delivery of healthcare in prison is the responsibility of the NHS in England and Wales. Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust have delegated responsibility for the commissioning and management of pathways.
Asked by: Lord Berkeley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede on 18 November 2024 (HL2243), whether they have carried out a risk assessment relating to e-bikes on His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service premises; and if so, what were the dates of the surveys for that risk assessment, and whether they will place a copy of those surveys in the Library of the House.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Risk-assessment surveys have been conducted at sites where there has been a request to store an e-bike. To date, ten sites have been surveyed, with Brighton Family Court deemed suitable to store e-bikes.
The list of sites surveyed are as follows:
The surveys contain sensitive site-related security information which we do not routinely publish and, as a result, copies will not be placed in the Library of the House.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made, as part of his Department’s responsibilities for access to justice and the protection of victims of domestic abuse, of the risk that delays caused by a non-engaging spouse in divorce and financial remedy proceedings may facilitate ongoing coercive or controlling behaviour.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
It is a top priority for this Government to tackle violence against women and girls, including economic abuse and coercive control. The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report on financial remedies on divorce considered the issue of domestic abuse in financial remedy cases. The Government is carefully considering this report as it prepares to consult on issues identified by the Law Commission. We will issue our consultation by Spring next year.
It is a matter of concern that perpetrators of domestic abuse may fail to engage with divorce proceedings. The courts have powers to deal with parties who fail to engage, including to make orders confirming a perpetrator has received a divorce application when they have refused to acknowledge it. In September this year, the process of asking the court to make orders about sending applications became easier, when His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service extended the online application system for litigants-in-person.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Family Court system, particularly in cases where one parent is legally represented and the other is not.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods
The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.
We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.
We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.
This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many litigants in person report that they were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation in each of the last five years; and what assessment he has made of the effect on judicial outcomes in family court proceedings.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods
The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.
We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.
We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.
This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of trends in the level of delays in the family courts caused by litigants in person on (a) one and (b) both sides of a case.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods
The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.
We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.
We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.
This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.