Report calls for young people to be offered meetings with judges responsible for decisions about their futures

The Young People’s Participation Pathway (YPPP), developed by Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO), ran from August 2024 to July 2025 across two local family justice board areas, involving four local areas.

Through YPPP, 24 young people (aged 10–17) across 19 cases met with judges, representing approximately 26% of eligible cases in implementing areas.

At the conclusion of the pilot, the NFJO found most young people valued meeting judges, which made them feel “heard”.

In a report on the pilot, published this month (20 January), the NFJO said: “Small but meaningful changes were sometimes made to their arrangements after their meetings with judges, such as access to pets and personal items.

“Some young people accepted difficult decisions after meeting judges, even when outcomes did not align with their wishes, and some professionals attributed this to being more involved and trusting they and their parents would be treated fairly.”

The NFJO observed that meetings helped “demystify court processes” and reduce anxiety.

Meanwhile, the pilot found that although there was “fairly widespread commitment” to the idea of young people meeting with judges in principle, there were some reservations and differences in perspective among professionals and parents.

For instance, judges had mixed views on the pilot.

The NFJO said: “Some were passionate advocates; others felt uncomfortable with what they saw as a blurring of role boundaries. Some were already consistent in their practice of meeting with older children during court proceedings. Others had poor experiences with challenging behaviour and conflict during meetings.

“There was consensus that giving children a voice was important, but judges’ personal perspectives and differing experiences of implementation affected their views of the model’s workability in practice.”

According to the report, parents interviewed outside pilot areas were “unexpectedly supportive” of the idea in theory - advocating for multiple meetings to reduce confusion and mistrust.

Meanwhile, the NFJO acknowledged that given their special role in advising on children’s best interests, future meetings with judges should also include Cafcass guardians.

Cafcass guardians did not formally participate in the pilot, which the NFJO found created “role confusion and gaps in representation”.

The report made the following conclusions and recommendations:

• Offer meetings with judges – there is value for young people. “Young people are already able to meet with judges where appropriate, but there is a lack of awareness of this among social workers. Young people’s positive experiences in this pilot – including feeling heard, developing trust in the judicial process and better understanding the court process – underline the importance of direct participation for procedural justice and young people’s well-being. However, training and support for judges needs to be considered so that they can successfully manage this type of participation.”
• Integrate meetings into existing structures. “Implementation worked best when the model was seen to build on existing good practices and systems. Integrating participation into existing structures within the local authority and court – such as planning panels, legal gateway meetings and case management processes – can reduce the administrative burden and enhance scalability.”
• Increase judicial dialogue and training. “Some of the barriers to implementation centred on inadequate training for judges when meeting with young people, as well as uncertainties regarding their role and the purpose of the meetings. Dialogue within the judiciary – as well as supportive and appropriate training to clarify judges’ roles and expectations – may support cultural change and improve judicial confidence.”

The NFJO said: “Young people’s largely positive experiences align with international evidence showing children value direct judicial contact and can engage maturely with legal processes. Those who participated reported feeling heard, developing trust in judges and the judicial process, gaining a better understanding of proceedings and, in some cases, accepting difficult decisions more readily.

“However, this evaluation also points to why children meeting judges has never become routine despite longstanding policy support. […] Professional concerns from the literature relating to worries about children being pressured by parents to present particular narratives, concerns about safeguarding, and questions about how judicial contact fits within existing due process manifested in this study as disagreements about judicial role boundaries and appropriate professional responsibilities.”

The NFJO continued: “[…] The evaluation identified conditions under which benefits materialised: adequate preparation, judges comfortable with direct engagement and skilled at building rapport while maintaining boundaries and accessible communication.”

The full report can be read here.

Lottie Winson