Children involved in family court proceedings in England and Wales are rarely addressed directly by the judges who make decisions about their lives. Research shows that when children are not kept informed or helped to understand what is happening in care or family proceedings, they can feel confused, unheard, and disconnected from the legal process. A new toolkit released in February 2025 by the Family Division of the High Court encourages judges to provide children with a child-centred explanation of the decisions made about them. One way to do this is by writing personal, non-publicised letters that explain — outside of the formal judgment — what was decided in their cases, and why. The guidance is a promising move toward improving the quality of children’s experiences in the family justice system. However, its discretionary nature may not be enough to prevent inconsistency in day-to-day judicial practice.

Safeguarding children’s participation rights

The toolkit’s principles draw on domestic, European, and international legal frameworks protecting children’s rights. General Comments 12 and 14 to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children must be informed of outcomes and legal reasoning in cases pertaining to them in language and formats they can understand. The Council of Europe’s Guidelines on Child-Friendly Justice reaffirm this, especially when a child’s views differ from the final decision. Domestically, the Guidelines for Judges Meeting Children advisejudges to explain outcomes in family proceedings and help children feel connected to the proceedings.

In practice, however, much of the family court process is still built around indirect participation. A child’s views are often presented through ‘adult proxies’ — social workers, or legal or welfare representatives who may unintentionally filter, simplify or misinterpret them. These professionals are typically responsible for relaying outcomes back to the child, even though many have limited training in how to do so in child-centred ways.

Why judicial communication matters

Direct communication from judges can help children make sense of what has happened, feel reassured that their views were understood, and feel more valued by the court. Children are more likely to accept decisions, even those they disagree with, when they feel listened to and treated with respect.

Written explanations can also counteract conflicting or harmful narratives children may hear from others, particularly in contested cases involving multiple adults or agencies. Over time, such letters may become important reference points, offering clarity as children contextualise past experiences and think about their futures.

The guidance prompts judges to consider how the tone, structure, and presentation of their communication affects children. Scholars have identified these as important factors which shape how children engage with the justice process. A well-drafted letter can support procedural justice — demonstrating that the child’s perspective was taken seriously and, in turn, increasing the child’s trust in the system. It can also support therapeutic justice by acknowledging the emotional weight of court proceedings and providing clear, compassionate explanations to help children navigate distressing experiences.

A practical, evidence-based resource

The toolkit is a strong example of co-produced guidance, developed with input from various professionals, including magistrates, social workers, lawyers, psychologists, and feedback from the Family Justice Young People’s Board, made up of children with lived experience or a strong interest in family justice. It includes practical tips for judges on tailoring communication to each child, avoiding formulaic writing, and managing anxieties about saying ‘the wrong thing’. In doing so, it promotes empathic, forward-looking communication that prioritises children’s long-term development.

Crucially, the guidance does not mandate that judges write to children in every case; instead, inviting them to consider whether doing so might support a child’s understanding and wellbeing. This includes reflecting on whether a written explanation suits the child’s age and circumstances, or if another form of communication might be more appropriate. Such a discretionary approach seems sensible given the diversity of cases in family courts.

However, leaving this decision to individual judges could risk uneven practice, where some children receive written explanations, and others do not. This raises broader questions about whether discretionary guidance alone can adequately safeguard children’s rights in practice. An earlier study suggests that family judges vary widely in how they perceive, interpret and act on judicial guidance. Given the potential long-term significance of these letters for children, follow-up research is needed to understand how the toolkit is being used. Alongside this, interdisciplinary training could help judges strengthen their understanding of how best to rely on professional input, and gauge children’s preferences.

Even so, the President of the Family Division’s endorsement of the toolkit signals a growing recognition that children’s access to justice involves more than just their participation in court; it requires demonstrable and meaningful judicial communication. With its help, family judges can hopefully view themselves not just as adjudicators, but as communicators with the ability to empower children through the decision-making process.