Key Trends Shaping Family Law in 2026

Key Trends Shaping Family Law in 2026

Introduction: Never standing still

Family Law never stands still, constantly reacting to changes in society, and changing attitudes. It also changes simply in an effort to improve outcomes for the families it serves.

And 2026 is no different. In fact, some of the changes that are happening or are contemplated this year are perhaps amongst the most revolutionary seen for a generation.

So, what are the trends shaping Family Law in 2026?

In this article we will examine some of the most important trends, ranging from reforms that will radically alter the way that the law works for huge numbers of people, to smaller changes, that will only affect a few, albeit in very significant ways.

Child focused courts

As we explained here in this post the Government announced in March that ‘Child Focused Courts’ are to be rolled out across all family court areas in England and Wales over the next three years.

For details of what Child Focused Courts are, see that post, but briefly their main features include:

• The Child Impact Report: The Child Impact Report is prepared by Cafcass at an early stage in the proceedings. It gives an insight into the impact of what is happening upon the child, thereby encouraging the parents to consider how they might make things better for the child, rather than just concentrating upon their own ‘rights’.
• Less Adversarial Approach: The old system operated an ‘adversarial’ approach, pitting one parent against the other. The Child Focused model moves to a more ‘inquisitorial’ approach, where the focus is upon establishing the truth, and looking for solutions, rather than encouraging conflict.
• Fewer and Faster Hearings: Under the Child Focused model cases will be significantly streamlined, usually involving fewer and faster court hearings than under the old system.
• Focus in the Voice of the Child: The child focused model gives the voice of the child a greater emphasis, at an earlier stage in the proceedings, to ensure that the child’s experiences inform decisions, and are not overlooked.

The whole country will not be covered by child focused courts in 2026. However, as the former President of the Family Division indicated, we can expect elements of the child focused model to be used by courts in areas that are not yet covered.

Repeal of presumption of parental involvement

As part of its Courts and Tribunals Bill the Government is to repeal the presumption of parental involvement.

The presumption requires the court, when considering arrangements for children, to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of both parents in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.

However, evidence suggests that the presumption can actually lead to the child being harmed, in particular by prioritising contact with a parent over concerns surrounding domestic abuse by that parent.

In the light of those concerns the Government decided that the presumption should be repealed, and the process of repeal is now happening. Indeed, courts are already proceeding as if the presumption has been repealed.

Financial Remedies reform

This and the following two proposed reforms are covered by a recently-published Government consultation. The consultation will last until August, so the reforms won’t happen this year. However, we may well feel the effects long before the reforms take place.

The proposed financial remedy reforms include:

• Codifying in statute rules that have been made by the courts, such as the “sharing principle” (whereby the assets should be divided equally, unless there is a good reason to depart from equality), and the concept of dividing assets to meet “needs”. It is hoped that this codification will make the law more certain.
• Introducing an “overarching objective” for the courts. The objective would be a fair outcome, and the Government’s view is that this should be achieved through the application of the “sharing” and “needs” principles.
• Introducing a rule requiring the court to consider pensions accrued during the marriage when making financial orders, to ensure that pensions are not overlooked.

The Government is proposing that “qualifying nuptial agreements” (i.e. “pre-nuptial” agreements, entered into before the marriage takes place, or “post-nuptial” agreements, entered into after marriage) should be enforceable contracts that are not subject to substantive scrutiny by the court, unless they fail to make adequate provision for needs.

To be a “qualifying nuptial agreement” requires several things, including:

• Contract Validity: the agreement must be a valid contract without, for example, undue influence or misrepresentation.
• 28-Day Period: the agreement must not have been made within the 28 days immediately before the wedding.
• Material Financial Disclosure: each party to the agreement must have received, at the time of making of it, disclosure of material information about the other party’s financial situation.
• Independent Legal Advice: independent legal advice for each party signing the nuptial agreement, to ensure each understands the legal effect and consequences of the agreement.

Rights for Cohabitants

For the first time cohabitants are to be given the right to make financial remedy claims against their partners upon relationship breakdown. The Government’s proposals include the following features:

• Cohabitants will be able to seek similar financial remedies as divorcing couples.
• However, awards to cohabitants would be needs-led, with needs being assessed more narrowly than on divorce. Further, the courts would not apply the sharing principle as they do on divorce, as mentioned above. These rules will mean that cohabitants will generally receive less generous awards than those going through divorce.
• To be eligible to make a claim, the couple must have lived together for a minimum of three years, or have a child.
• The couple would be able to agree to opt-out of these rights, if they wish.

Restricting Parental Responsibility for offenders

The new Victims and Courts Act 2026 operates to restrict parental responsibility for offenders in two ways:

• Restricting parental responsibility of the worst child sex offenders: Where the Crown Court sentences an offender to a life sentence, or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more, for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, and the offender has parental responsibility for at least one child, the Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility. The order must specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court.
• Restricting parental responsibility for a child conceived as a result of rape: Where the Crown Court sentences an offender for an offence of rape, and is satisfied that a child for whom the offender has parental responsibility was conceived as a result of the rape, the Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender. The order must specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court.

Landlords to evict domestic abusers

The Government is seeking to strengthen protections for victims of domestic abuse who live in social housing (i.e. housing provided by housing associations or local councils).

As the Government states: “Current housing legislation has few protections for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse that wish to remain in their home without their abuser.  Landlords can evict perpetrators but only in cases where the victim has already left their social home. This means that too often, victims are forced to choose between staying in danger or losing their homes.”

The Government’s Social Housing Bill intends to address this by introducing new protections for victims of domestic abuse who live in social housing, including:

• Stronger powers for landlords to enable them to take possession of a property where domestic abuse has taken place, without the requirement for the victim to leave;
• A new mechanism to facilitate the transfer of the joint tenancy into the sole name of the victim, where a victim wants to remain in the home as a sole tenant; and
• A safeguard to ensure that perpetrators are unable to unilaterally end a joint tenancy in retaliation against possession action, until proceedings have been concluded.

Conclusion: Definite trends

All of the above relates to specific reforms, whether introducing new laws, amending existing laws, or simply changing the way that the courts work when applying the laws.

But behind these reforms we can discern some definite trends:

• Fairer Outcomes: As indicated above, the Government is intending that its changes to the law on financial remedies on divorce will lead to fairer outcomes for divorcing couples. And in introducing financial remedies for cohabitants on relationship breakdown, the Government is seeking to address the severe financial disadvantage that financially weaker cohabitants can suffer.
• Clearer Laws: There is a growing awareness amongst lawmakers that the law should be as clear as possible, particularly in this age when many people are having to go to court without legal representation. The financial remedies reforms, for example, are designed to make it clearer what the outcome will be if the case goes to court.
• Encouraging Agreement: And that clarity should, it is hoped, make it more likely that couples will agree financial settlements, rather than argue matters in court. And obviously making nuptial agreements binding is likely to make it more common for couples to agree matters between themselves.
• Putting Children First: We see this obviously in the introduction of child-focused courts, where the parents are encouraged to concentrate on the impact of what is happening upon their children. We also see it in the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement, which seeks to ensure that the welfare of the child is put before the ‘rights’ of the parent. And we see it too in the restriction of parental responsibility for perpetrators of the worst child sex offences.
• A Better Court Experience: It is well known that contested court proceedings can often make things worse in children cases, by pitting one parent against the other. Accordingly, the aim of child focused courts is not just to put the child at the centre of things, but also to make proceedings less adversarial and quicker, with fewer court hearings.
• Getting Tough on Domestic Abuse: Finally, no great change here, but giving social housing landlords the power to evict domestic abusers demonstrates a continued trend: getting tough on domestic abuse.