Time for change in child protection proceedings: A Kent perspective

As Co Chairs of the Kent Family Justice Board and Joint Heads of Group of the Child Protection Team at Invicta Law, we are acutely aware of the pressures currently facing the family justice system.

The President of the Family Division’s call for a renewed focus on concluding care proceedings within the statutory 26-week timeframe was framed not as a critique of professional commitment, but as a challenge to entrenched ways of working that have allowed delay to become increasingly normalised. It was not a call for haste at the expense of welfare, but a clear reminder that delay itself risks becoming a form of harm, and that timeliness is integral to justice. The message was clear: delay is not merely a procedural issue; it has a human cost. For children, prolonged uncertainty can be profoundly harmful. 

The question now is no longer whether change is necessary as that is broadly accepted across the system but whether we are willing to align practice, capacity and culture to deliver it. National debate has tended to focus on the scale of the challenge and the reality of workforce and resource constraints. These are real and must be acknowledged. However, they cannot become reasons for inaction.

This article offers a Kent-based leadership perspective on what meaningful change requires in practice. Drawing on our local experience and recent research, we reflect on where reform efforts risk stalling, where opportunity continues to be missed, and what needs to shift if ambition is to translate into improved outcomes for children. The task ahead is not about working faster at all costs, but about working differently, with sharper focus, earlier decision making and renewed confidence in proportionate, purposeful practice, whilst recognising, as the court has long emphasised, that justice must never be sacrificed upon the altar of speed.

January 2026 research and key outcomes

More than three years on, both national research and our local Kent experience suggest that while the ambition behind this reform is widely supported, the reality of delivering timely justice remains profoundly challenging. Delay is not confined to just the court arena; it is apparent much earlier in the process, particularly during pre proceedings, where systemic pressures continue to hamper progress.

The results of the 2026 survey suggest whilst there was broad support for the ambition of the 20 point plan, respondents consistently identified barriers to achieving the 26 week timetable. Key findings included:

• Pre proceedings remain a missed opportunity. Where workforce instability, late information sharing, or capacity constraints undermine early work, proceedings begin already behind pace.
• Duplication of assessments continues to be a significant cause of delay, often driven by a lack of confidence that pre issue assessments will be relied upon.
• Late identification of kinship carers was repeatedly cited as a primary cause of extended timescales, with delay frequently arising from late disclosure rather than unnecessary assessment.
• IRHs are under utilised as resolution hearings, commonly rendered ineffective by late filing of final evidence or insufficient preparation.

Importantly, practitioners distinguished between purposeful delay, for example, where time is genuinely required to assess a viable kinship option, and avoidable drift arising from procedural repetition, non-compliance or late decision making. The research highlighted strong alignment between judicial expectations and practitioner understanding of what needs to change; the challenge lies not in policy, but in creating the conditions for solution focused practice to succeed.

When asked in the 2023 survey how realistic the 26 week deadline was in practice, 60% of respondents said it would be “quite” or “very” difficult to achieve. Three years on, that figure has risen to 69%, suggesting that the challenges have been more significant and persistent than initially anticipated.

In 2023, the reform considered most difficult to implement was robust case management at the Issues Resolution Hearing, aimed at avoiding unnecessary stress and delay for children and families. Only 43% of respondents felt this would be easily or mostly achievable, with the remainder predicting significant difficulty.

By 2026, those concerns have been borne out in practice. 50% of respondents reported that robust IRH case management has been “quite difficult” to achieve, while a further 21% described it as “very difficult”. These findings underline the gap between procedural expectation and operational reality. HMCTS data reinforces this picture. Between January and December 2025, only 35% of cases in Kent and Medway concluded at the IRH stage, compared with a national figure of 49.5%. That said, more recent data shows encouraging signs of improvement, with conclusion rates rising to 51% in December 2025 and 53% in January 2026, suggesting a positive trajectory of change.

Respondents also expressed sustained concern about several core elements of the 20 point plan, including:

• The expectation that assessments completed during pre proceedings should stand as evidence and not be repeated within proceedings.
• The requirement for Part 25 applications to be issued before the Case Management Hearing, alongside stringent application of the necessity test.
• The obligation on parties to notify non compliance promptly.
• The requirement for parents and carers to identify alternative carers by a fixed date.
• The expectation that narrow disputed issues should be dealt with by submissions at IRHs.

While each of these measures is intended to reduce delay, practitioners report that without sufficient time, staffing stability, and administrative support, they can add pressure rather than alleviate it.

As Joanna Augustin, Principal Solicitor, observes: “Effective Issues Resolution Hearings depend on early clarity. Where parents’ final positions and agreed threshold are not identified in good time, this necessarily limits the Guardian’s ability to make final recommendations and reduces the opportunity for meaningful engagement of all parties before the IRH. Robust CMH directions, realistic timetabling and continued focus on agreement of threshold are therefore essential if the IRH is to function as a genuine point of resolution rather than a hearing which simply defers decision making.”

Cafcass data: workload pressure in context

Cafcass data covering the period April 2025 to February 2026 points to sustained and increasing demand across public law proceedings. Over this period, Cafcass saw a 6.4% year‑on‑year rise in new children’s cases, alongside a 3.9% increase in public law demand and a 4.7% rise in care applications. Despite efforts across the system to improve case progression, the number of open cases also increased, rising by 6% nationally over the same period.

These figures provide important context for the pressures facing the family justice system. However, they should not be read as evidence that reform ambitions are unrealistic. Demand data illustrates the scale and persistence of pressure, but it does not, of itself, explain why delay has become embedded or why opportunities for earlier resolution continue to be missed. What it does underline is that any meaningful change must be capable of being sustained in conditions of consistently high demand, rather than being contingent on short‑term improvements in capacity.

The Kent DFJ area continues to experience particular pressure. Although local system partners have implemented a range of initiatives to improve case progression, challenges remain. The average duration of care proceedings in Kent DFJ and Medway DFJ (as of March 2026 data) is 47 weeks, and the number of cases exceeding 90 weeks in proceedings stands at 15. These figures reflect the cumulative impact of sustained demand, case complexity, and system capacity constraints, mirroring national trends while presenting acute local challenges.

Kent’s commitment to change

As Joint Heads of the Child Protection Team at Invicta Law and Co Chairs of the Kent Family Justice Board, we remain committed to driving improvement locally. The solution focused principles set out in the South East Circuit (South) Practice Note – Public Law dated November 2025 are being embedded locally and are the focus of the KFJB’s priorities for the year ahead.  This work sits within the wider national framework established by the Family Justice Board’s priorities for 2026–2029, which emphasise timely conclusion of care and supervision proceedings, the reduction of long‑running public law cases and more consistent case progression. Kent’s local priorities are therefore intentionally aligned with this national direction, translating shared ambition into practical, locally grounded action. Our priorities continue to include:

• Advocating for realistic, child focused timelines that balance urgency with welfare.
• Strengthening multi agency collaboration to address delays in evidence gathering and pre proceedings.
• Reinforcing pre proceedings as a decisive phase, promoting confidence in assessments completed before issue and challenging unnecessary repetition once proceedings commence. This approach reflects the President’s emphasis on proportionality and restraint, and on resisting the instinct to commission further work unless it is truly necessary.
• Recognising that late identification of alternative carers is a recurrent driver of avoidable delay and therefore working on earlier and more realistic kinship options being explored.
• Increasing the effectiveness of the Issues Resolution Hearing in order to restore the IRH to its intended role as a forum for resolution, supported by timely filing of final evidence.
• Using data driven oversight to identify pressure points and target resources effectively.

Taken together, these priorities reflect Kent’s contribution to the wider Family Justice Board ambition to reduce avoidable delay, address long running cases, and ensure that the statutory framework for timely decision making is delivered through confident, proportionate and child focused practice at a local level.

Conclusion

The challenge now facing the family justice system is not one of awareness. There is broad agreement about the importance of timely decision making, the harm that delay can cause to children and the ambition underpinning the statutory 26 week framework. The more difficult task lies in ensuring that these principles are reflected consistently in everyday practice, particularly within a system experiencing sustained demand and complexity.

If the 26 week timetable is to operate as an effective framework rather than an aspirational benchmark, it must be supported by confident, proportionate decision making and by a shared commitment to using key stages of the process as points of progression. This includes re establishing pre proceedings as a decisive phase, strengthening trust in assessments completed before issue and restoring the Issues Resolution Hearing to its intended role as a forum for resolution rather than delay. Such an approach recognises that while some delay may be necessary and purposeful, drift rarely is.

In Kent, our focus remains on translating these principles into practice through collaborative system working, data informed oversight and a continued emphasis on proportionality and welfare. Sharing learning openly is essential if reform is to move beyond aspiration and become embedded across local systems. The work is ongoing, but the direction is clear. Delivering timely, welfare centred outcomes for children will depend not on identifying further reform objectives, but on sustaining the confidence, consistency and shared accountability required to embed them.

Helen Osborn (left) and Kirstine Hidalgo Souto (right) lead the Child Protection Team at Invicta Law.

As Joint Heads of Group, they provide leadership across a busy public law team, focussed on ensuring children’s cases are handled carefully, lawfully and without unnecessary delay.

The team of 70+ people work alongside Children’s Services at Kent County Council and other local authorities across the full range of public law children’s work, managing over 330 cases on average each year.

This includes care proceedings, pre-proceedings, High Court applications under the inherent jurisdiction, secure accommodation, Deprivation of Liberty applications for under-16s, and adoption and permanence planning.