Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, retires.
On 13 April 2026, Sir Andrew McFarlane will retire as President of the Family Division after nearly eight years in post. The process to appoint his successor began on 2 December 2025, following the announcement of his planned retirement.
Several names have been suggested, with Lord Justice Cobb widely regarded, at the time of writing, as the frontrunner, though whether the bookmakers have formalised that status is another matter.
In recent days, commentary across social media and legal discussion forums has been predictably polarised.
On one side, there has been enthusiastic praise for Sir Andrew’s achievements; on the other, sharp, often uncompromising criticism of his presidency.
For my part, I hold no personal animosity towards him. By most accounts, he is widely regarded as personable and approachable.Although I have never appeared before him, I first became aware of his work many years ago, long before his elevation to the High Court, when he was advising Dr Michael Pelling on an early family law challenge involving the European courts.
Dr Pelling was the country’s leading McKenzie Friend, until his retirement a few years back, who not only took over the running of my own family court case twenty years ago after I stopped using solicitors, but who’s encyclopaedic knowledge of the law and legal challenges on behalf of parents he helped, has led to various pieces of case law we still use today.
Sir Andrew’s professional trajectory is, in many respects, a conventional and distinguished one. Called to the Bar in 1977, he joined chambers in 1993 and took Silk in 1998. His judicial career followed a steady progression: Recorder in 1995, Deputy High Court Judge in 2000, High Court Judge (Family Division) in 2005, promotion to the Court of Appeal in 2011, and ultimately his appointment as President of the Family Division in July 2018, succeeding Sir James Munby. There is little in that path that could be described as unusual or controversial. As with any senior judicial figure, discussion inevitably turns to legacy. For Sir Andrew, that legacy will likely be defined by the Pathfinder Programme.
First proposed in 2021, Pathfinder was initially piloted in North Wales and Dorset before expanding to Birmingham and Cardiff, and more recently to other regions, including Hampshire at the beginning of 2026. In “A View from the President’s Chambers: July 2024,” Sir Andrew described Pathfinder as a shift towards a problem-solving, child-focused court model. Rather than relying on limited information at the first hearing, the system introduces a detailed Child Impact Report, prepared in advance by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru, capturing both the nature of the dispute and the child’s wishes and feelings. The intention is to move away from a litigant-led process towards one that is firmly child-led.
In principle, it is difficult to argue with that ambition. A system that reduces delay, limits unnecessary hearings, cuts down paperwork, and adapts to the growing number of unrepresented parents is, on its face, both sensible and necessary.
The difficulty, however, lies in the reality of implementation.
In practice, the Pathfinder Programme often feels less like a streamlined pathway and more like an uneven track imposed on a system ill-equipped to support it. The issue is not simply the design of the programme, but the condition of the infrastructure into which it has been introduced.
Over 25 years, I have worked in 53 different family courts and magistrates’ courts across the country, in addition to regular appearances in the High Court. That breadth of experience provides some perspective on how systems operate in practice rather than theory. Based on that experience, several recurring issues with Pathfinder stand out.
There have been repeated administrative failures, including courts neglecting to send initial orders to Cafcass within the required timeframe, resulting in months of avoidable delay before cases even begin. In some instances, orders have been drafted using outdated terminology, then left uncorrected for extended periods, compounding delays further.
Cafcass, in certain areas, has struggled to meet the 40-day deadline for producing Child Impact Reports, frequently seeking extensions due to resourcing constraints. Where reports are produced, they are rushed and lacking in evidential depth, leaving parents with little confidence that their circumstances have been properly understood.
Gatekeeping Hearings, intended to move cases forward efficiently, often do little more than defer progress, frequently resulting in further hearings that could just as easily have been listed from the outset. Meanwhile, shortages of judges continue to lead to cancelled hearings and significant delays, with fact-finding and final hearings sometimes listed six months or more after being directed. The consequence is the entrenchment of “status quo” arrangements, often to the detriment of one parent.
Perhaps most concerning is the impact on the parents themselves. While Pathfinder aims to centre the child’s voice, many parents report feeling increasingly marginalised by a process that appears distant and impersonal. Applications are submitted online, communication is largely remote, and key interactions, such as those informing the Child Impact Report, may take place via brief telephone calls. Decisions can follow without parents ever feeling they have had a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
For some, particularly fathers already struggling to maintain contact with their children, this can reinforce a sense of exclusion. The perception, rightly or wrongly, is of a system that processes cases rather than listens to people.
There is also growing anxiety around “Decision Hearings,” where parents fear that final outcomes may be reached without full exploration of the issues. Family cases are rarely straightforward, and it is difficult to reconcile the complexity of these matters with processes that risk appearing overly compressed.
None of this is to suggest that the underlying idea behind Pathfinder is flawed. On the contrary, early engagement, better information gathering, and a more child-focused approach are all necessary developments. But such a model can only succeed if supported by robust administrative systems and sufficient, and proficient, resources. At present, those foundations are not consistently in place.
To be clear, this is not a personal criticism of Sir Andrew McFarlane. Implementing a reform of this scale requires both vision and resolve, and he should be credited for attempting to modernise a system long in need of change.
The concern lies in execution. Incremental adjustments to a system under strain are not be enough. In my view, the family justice system requires more fundamental wholesale reform, particularly in light of longstanding concerns about outcomes for fathers, many of whom continue to feel disadvantaged despite procedural changes.
Over the course of my career, I have seen five Presidents of the Family Division come and go, each bringing their own priorities and perspectives. There are moments when one reflects on those who did not get offered the post, but who might have approached the role differently, including Sir Paul Coleridge, who later founded the Marriage Foundation, and Sir Nicholas Mostyn, whose work demonstrated both intellectual rigour and a willingness to engage with new ideas and technologies.
As the system now stands, we are entering a period of increasing tension. Concerns about parental involvement, particularly for fathers, are intensifying, and the broader implications for parental responsibility cannot be ignored.
In that context, those who are quick to criticise Sir Andrew’s tenure may wish to reflect carefully. Change, especially in a system as complex as family justice, is rarely straightforward, and the alternatives are not always an improvement.