How to Lose Your Child Arrangements Case in 6 Easy Steps
- NeilAndrewsMckenzie
- May 7
- 6 min read
Most parents who come to court are not unreasonable.
They care about their children, they want things to be fair, and they often have genuine concerns. But again and again, I see cases weakened not because of the underlying facts but because of how those facts are presented.
These are the six biggest mistakes I see in children proceedings. None of them are deliberate. All of them are avoidable.
Fixing even one or two can materially change how your case is received.
1. Over-reliance on domestic abuse allegations
Domestic abuse is taken seriously by the court. That is not in question.
Practice Direction 12J requires the court to consider allegations of domestic abuse and, where necessary, determine them before making welfare decisions. It is the guidance the court follows when domestic abuse is raised. In practical terms, it requires the court to identify allegations early, consider whether a fact-finding hearing is needed, and assess how any findings impact the child[ren] and future arrangements. It also emphasises that the court must ensure the child[ren] and the alleged victim are protected from harm throughout proceedings.
Further information on Practice Direction 12J can be found here:- https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/practice-direction-12j-child-arrangements-and-domestic-abuse/
What often goes wrong is how those allegations are presented.
Broad statements such as:
“He is abusive”
“She has emotionally abused me for years"
carry far less weight than people expect unless they are supported by clear, specific, evidenced incidents.
The court is not deciding whether a relationship was unhealthy in general terms. It's very common for people to lose sight of that, and it becomes rooted in parent v parent. However, the court is actually deciding:
what happened
whether it is relevant to the child[ren]
what impact it has on arrangements going forward
As emphasised in Re H-N (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448, the focus is on patterns of behaviour and their impact, not labels.
Where allegations are vague or unsupported (think: 'they are nasty / abusive'), the risk is not just that they are disregarded, it is also that they can undermine overall credibility.
What works better:
Focus on specific incidents
Link them to impact on the child[ren] (essential)
Provide evidence where possible
A short, precise point will usually carry more weight than pages of assertion.
2. Diagnosing “parental alienation”
“Parental alienation” remains one of the most contentious concepts in family proceedings.
There has been increased scrutiny of how it is used, and in some sections of social media, a push to discredit it entirely. But the reality is more nuanced: it remains part of the court’s lexicon, albeit in a far more structured and controlled way.
The current approach is set out in the December 2024 guidance issued by the Family Justice Council on responding to allegations of alienating behaviour.
That guidance shifts the focus away from asserting a label and toward analysing the child’s behaviour and its causes.
In practice, the court will typically consider:
Whether the child is showing reluctance, resistance, or refusal to engage with a parent
Whether that response is explained by the child’s own experiences
If not, whether there is evidence of psychological influence or manipulation
This is sometimes described as a “three-stage” approach. It is not a rigid legal test, but a framework to assist the court in evaluating the evidence.
Statements frequently include:
“She is alienating the child[ren]”
“This is clearly parental alienation”
The difficulty is that this amounts to a diagnosis, and that is not something a lay person is in a position to make.
The court will only reach such conclusions after careful analysis of the evidence. In some cases, this may involve input from Cafcass or an appropriately qualified expert. Without that, the label itself carries little weight and can again sometimes undermine credibility.
What works better:
Avoid diagnostic language
Focus on specific behaviours
Show patterns and impact on the child’s relationship
Allow the court to apply the appropriate framework
Describing what is happening will always be more persuasive than attempting to categorise it.
3. Psychoanalysing the other parent
This is one of the fastest ways to lose the court’s attention.
Statements often contain:
“He is a narcissist”
“She has control issues”
“He is manipulative”
The problem is simple: this is speculation, not evidence.
As reinforced in Re B (A Child) (Fact-Finding: Allegations of Harm) [2018] EWCA Civ 2196, findings must be grounded in evidence, not inference.
Judges are not determining personality types. They are determining facts.
There is also a further point that is often overlooked when it comes to dishonesty and personal attacks. Even where a court finds that a person has been untruthful about one issue, that does not automatically mean everything they say is unreliable.
This reflects the approach in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. While this is a criminal law authority, the underlying principle: that a lie does not automatically determine overall credibility—is consistent with how courts approach evidence more generally.
Overstating that someone “cannot be believed” is therefore unlikely to be determinative, and can detract from stronger, evidence-based points.
What works better:
Focus on facts
Let the court draw conclusions
4. Unfiltered use of AI
AI is increasingly used in drafting. It can be helpful in certain situations, but unfiltered use often causes problems.
Common issues include:
exaggerated or dramatic tone
generic legal language
irrelevant or inaccurate content
excessive length
'hallucinating' made up caselaw
There is not yet (as of May 2026) any specific case law on AI use in family proceedings, but the governing principles are well established: credibility, relevance, and proportionality. Courts routinely emphasise proportionality and relevance in written evidence.
Overlong or unfocused material risks falling foul of the expectations reflected in the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 27A.
Judges are highly experienced readers. Material that feels artificial, exaggerated, or unfocused is quickly discounted.
What works better:
Use AI as a tool, not an author
Edit for accuracy and relevance
Reduce rather than expand
Precision always beats volume.
I have already written extensively on the issue of AI issue in child law proceedings, and that blog post can be found here: https://www.namf.co.uk/post/ai-and-family-court
5. Losing sight of the child
This is the most important point.
Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.
But many statements drift into:
fairness between adults
relationship history
blame
These are not the court’s focus. Their focus is only on the child[ren] - and the guidance that must be followed in this regard is within the child welfare checklist. https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/the-welfare-checklist/
Some parents believe that 50/50 as a starting point for child arrangements can be justified by it being 'fair'. In some cases this will be the case, but it's important not to lose sight of the fact that this may well be 'fair' between the two parents, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best arrangements for the children.
As confirmed in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, the court’s role is to determine what best meets the child’s welfare needs—not to adjudicate moral fault.
What works better:
Anchor every key point to:
the child’s welfare
their needs
their routine
their relationships
If a point does not assist the court in determining welfare, it is unlikely to carry weight.
6. Expecting the court to “just know”
This is one of the most damaging mistakes.
The court only works with what is clearly put before it.
In Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, the importance of clearly identifying the issues for determination was emphasised.
Common problems include:
not stating clearly what order is sought
not identifying the issues in dispute
providing large volumes of material without guidance
This is often compounded by overloading the court with documents—messages, emails, background—without explaining what matters and why.
Judges do not have the time to extract your case for you.
What works better:
What I am asking the court to order
Why (linked to the child[ren])
What the court needs to decide
It is up to YOU to make suggestions to the court as to what should happen, and why. Whether they agree is up to them, but they won't provide the solutions.
Your coherent strategy should be to explain to the court what it is you're seeking, and why this would be in the best interests of the child[ren]. EVERY point you make needs to come back to that. If it doesn't, discard it.
If you do not define your case, the court and the other party will do it for you.
Final thoughts: what the court actually needs from you
The court is not looking for:
the longest statement
the strongest language
or the most detailed history
It is looking for:
clarity
relevance
evidence
and a focus on the child[ren]
As observed in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, analysis must be evidence-based and properly reasoned.
Most cases are not lost because the facts are weak. They are weakened because those facts are presented in a way that obscures rather than clarifies.
If you are unsure, a useful rule of thumb is this: if a point is not clear, evidenced, and connected to the child[ren], it is unlikely to assist your case.
These mistakes do not just weaken your case—they make it easier for the other side to control the narrative.
Vague allegations can be reframed as exaggeration
Labels can be portrayed as hostility
Unfocused material allows key points to be ignored
The more precise and structured you are, the harder it is for your case to be undermined.
I hope this helps!
Disclaimer - views are entirely my own, and nothing in this blogpost should be considered legal advice.
If you wish to book a consultation with me or my team at First Family Law then please email us on info@firstfamilylaw.co.uk
Comments