Is it Time to Simplify Family Law for the User?

Recently, former Supreme Court President Lady Hale appeared on Rethink – Radical, a BBC podcast hosted by Amol Rajan, where she offered a typically incisive yet compassionate critique of how family law is handled in England and Wales. Best known for her formidable legal intellect – and affectionately nicknamed “the Spider Woman” after her headline-grabbing ruling against the Johnson government’s prorogation of Parliament – Lady Hale made one suggestion in particular which deserves attention, being for a simpler, more integrated system for resolving family disputes.

At the heart of this proposal is a strikingly straightforward idea: all family cases – whether involving finances, children, or domestic abuse – should begin with a single, unified application form. This, she argued, would replace the confusing and fragmented process that currently forces families to navigate multiple separate legal proceedings, each with its own paperwork, rules and timelines.

People don’t go through a breakup in neat boxes — divorce over here, children over there… it’s all mixed up,” she said. “And the law should recognise that.

Lady Hale’s vision is for a system that reflects the messy reality of family breakdowns. A combined application would allow courts to take in the full context of a family’s situation from the outset: Who is caring for the children? Who pays the bills? Is there a risk of harm? Rather than repeatedly asking vulnerable people to relive and retell painful experiences across multiple formats and courtrooms, one comprehensive form could tell the whole story.

This may sound like a bureaucratic tweak, but its implications are deeply human. At present, separating couples often find themselves pulled into parallel processes within the family courts – applying to one court for financial orders, another for child arrangements and yet another if there are allegations of domestic abuse. Each process operates to a different rhythm, with different timeframes and terminology. For a person in crisis, already overwhelmed by emotional upheaval, this complexity can be bewildering, if not outright harmful. Court hearing dates can arise in quick succession or even overlap, and preparing for one piece of hefty litigation – let alone two – is no mean feat.

The case for reform is not new. Legal professionals, charities and academics have long warned that the justice system risks retraumatising vulnerable individuals – especially survivors of abuse – and built-in delays and duplication serves no one. What Lady Hale has done, however, is address those concerns with one single, elegant solution. Whilst it cannot present a blueprint for the whole of the court process after issue, it would at least allow a quicker and easier way in.

[Importantly, she argues that a unified approach would benefit women and children in particular. Women are, most often, the ones facing financial hardship, juggling childcare, or dealing with abuse in the aftermath of a relationship breakdown. A joined-up system would enable the courts to spot these pressures early, consider them holistically and intervene more effectively.]

There is also an access-to-justice dimension to her argument. Since the cuts to legal aid under LASPO in 2013, growing numbers of people have had to represent themselves in family proceedings. For litigants in person, the labyrinthine structure of the current system can be a major barrier. Simplifying the initial point of entry — through a single form, written in plain English, supported by good guidance – would make it more possible for people to understand their rights and engage meaningfully with the legal process.

Critically, this isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about fairness. A system that only works if you can afford a solicitor is a system that systematically disadvantages those already at risk. Lady Hale’s proposals may offer a way to make the family courts feel more accessible, more transparent and a little more humane for all users. Not that they are not “humane” now – of all the courts, family courts are generally the best, but that’s not to say that they could not be rather better.

There are of course challenges. Lady Hale was talking of a single access point via one compendious form – but that would, in and of itself, risk becoming a behemoth of a form! To which, what happens next? How are the cases triaged, by whom, and how are they managed to effect a more unified system – if that’s what we want to achieve?

Integrating separate legal processes would require coordination, resources, procedural and perhaps even legislative change. Judges would need to be equipped to consider a wider range of issues at once. Safeguards would have to be in place to ensure that no issue – such as abuse allegations – gets overlooked in the name of streamlining processes. But these are not insurmountable obstacles. Other jurisdictions, including parts of Australia and Canada, have already experimented with unified family courts with promising results. England and Wales could learn from these models.

To a family lawyer of 35 years’ practice, Lady Hale’s idea sounds radical – but it is rooted in decades of experience at the highest levels of the judiciary, and a career-long commitment to making the law serve ordinary people, especially the most vulnerable. Her approach is not about tearing down the system but about building something better – something that reflects how families actually live, love, and sometimes fall apart.

For those of us working in family law – whether as lawyers, judges, support workers, or policy makers – her challenge is clear. We must stop forcing people to navigate a system built for bureaucratic neatness, with layers of complexity and confusion the actual families at the heart of it all cannot fathom and start designing one that works for real families. That means listening to the people who use the system. It means simplifying the language, coordinating the processes, and prioritising the needs of children and survivors of abuse.

In Lady Hale’s words: “We have to make the law fit around people’s lives, not expect people in crisis to fit into the law.”

The simplicity of that statement belies its significance. It is both a critique and a call to action and we would do well to heed it.

How can Morr & Co help?

If you have any questions or would like any further information on the content of this article, please do not hesitate to contact our Family Law team on 0333 038 9100 or email info@morrlaw.com and a member of our expert team will get back to you.

Disclaimer
Although correct at the time of publication, the contents of this newsletter/blog are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute, legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article. Please contact us for the latest legal position.