Neurodivergence in family law: one year on from the Family Justice Council Guidance

Last year the Family Justice Council published guidance for family law practitioners about working with neurodivergent clients or parties. This guidance highlights the need for greater understanding of the challenges faced by neurodivergent parties, and providing much needed guidance for how we can ensure that they are able to participate fully in their family case. 

This article looks at where we are, a year on from the guidance having been published, and offers practical and strategic advice for legal professionals navigating the unique challenges that can arise in such cases, drawing largely on the foundational recommendations made in the guidance and expanding further, based on the author’s personal experience and lessons learned from the last 12 months. 

From initial client meetings to litigation strategy and courtroom advocacy, it provides actionable insights tailored to support procedural fairness and access to justice.

Why it matters

Some 15-20% of the global population are estimated to have a neurological difference, and yet – according to the Family Justice Council – the evidence suggests that neurodivergence is overrepresented but often underdiagnosed among court users.

When family law practitioners are involved in a person’s life, it is usually (although not exclusively) the case that something has gone wrong. Whether that is the breakdown of a relationship, or disputes around arrangements for children, the experience is likely to be highly stressful. 

The prospect of dealing with legal professionals and the court can be incredibly daunting, particularly where the outcome can have significant and life-long repercussions for those involved. The formality, language and process itself can feel bewildering and often inaccessible

A client, party or witness who is neurodivergent may experience additional challenges, whether with digesting and processing information, communicating, recalling facts, giving evidence, or simply understanding and following the proceedings. At their most extreme, these challenges can represent a barrier to participation in their own case, restricting access to justice. 

As legal professionals, we have a duty to ensure that parties (and witnesses) are able to fully engage in the proceedings, so we must be alive to challenges that our neurodivergent clients face and do what we can to address these. 

Definitions

Neurodiversity refers to both neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals. A person will be considered neurotypical if their brains work in what is considered a ‘typical’ way. Someone who is neurodivergent will often think, feel, move, or process information in a different way. 

A huge number of diagnoses fall under the umbrella of neurodivergence, including:

• Dyslexia 

• Dyspraxia 

• Dyscalculia

• ADHD/ADD

• Autism/ASD

• OCD

• Tourette’s Syndrome

Co-occurrence is not uncommon, so someone who is neurodivergent may fall within more than one category. 

The legal standard for capacity 

Being neurodivergent certainly does not mean that a person lacks capacity. Indeed, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established otherwise. Simply because a person requires additional support or reasonable adjustments does not mean that they are unable to give instructions or make decisions about their case. 

That said, where a party is neurodivergent, they may be more susceptible to burn-out or a mental health crisis during the course of proceedings, which can lead to a loss of litigation capacity. This is something that we must be mindful of as we conduct our cases. 

Best practice 

Understanding the challenges that a neurodivergent client or party might face, and the corresponding impact within proceedings, enables us to adapt our practices to better support them. It also means that we can educate the other professionals involved in a case and advocate on our client’s behalf to ensure the necessary reasonable adjustments are made to allow them to participate fully in proceedings. 

Onboarding 

It should be standard professional practice to ask in advance of any meeting whether a prospective client has any additional needs. This is a catch-all question that should flag not just neurodivergence, but also any disability, mental health issue or other trauma that a client considers relevant. 

Where a client confirms they are neurodivergent, before proceeding with an initial appointment, it is important to have a clearer understanding of what they perceive any potential challenges to working together might be and to explore how these could be mitigated. 

Practitioners may want to consider creating a standard questionnaire to cover the main points, although thought must always be given as to how best to collect the information (for example, a dyslexic individual may be put off by having to complete a long or complicated form). In addition to specific challenges, it is important to determine the best way of communicating with the client, and to identify potential environmental issues (e.g. is the client sensitive to light, noise or temperature) and how best to limit their impact.   

This basic information will ensure that you approach an initial call or meeting in the most suitable way for the prospective client. 

Client care 

As a case develops, it is important to keep client care under review. It should not be a linear process but rather an ongoing discussion, with the neurodivergent client’s individual experiences informing the necessary adjustments. They will know best what works for them; it is not something that can or should be dictated to them. Further considerations include whether the client has a preferred way of recording tasks or deadlines; how they would prefer to receive updates/bad news; and planning for work on bigger tasks (such as statements and Forms E).

It might be sensible to record any agreement about how you will communicate and work together on the file. Family law practitioners often find themselves treated as a friend or therapist by clients, not just as a lawyer,  so it is important to set clear boundaries around what our role entails and what it does not. For autistic clients in particular (typically big rule-followers), it can be useful to record clear guidelines or boundaries, including simple things like office hours.

Court hearings/NCDR

Hearings are a stressful experience, especially for neurodivergent clients. 

In many ways, family law is ahead of the curve – many practitioners have long been advocating for progress and as a result, the judiciary is taking positive steps to ensure that neurodivergent parties are properly supported. This is made easier with the help of the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) Part 3A and PD3AA, which set out clear guidance in relation to vulnerable parties and witnesses and how they can be supported in proceedings. 

In addition, with the current focus on Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR), which aims to keep parties out of the court system, we can also benefit from an alternative, more flexible system, which can easily be adapted to accommodate reasonable adjustments. 

Ultimately, whatever the format of the hearing, consideration will need to be given at a very early stage to:

1. Whether the party needs an intermediary to be appointed to support them (and importantly, the court) throughout proceedings/at a specific stage.

2. Whether there are any reasonable adjustments/participation directions that can be ordered, which will assist a neurodivergent party/witness.

The 2025 case of M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440 has clarified that appointing an intermediary will not be necessary in every case but should be a decision for the judge. Intermediaries can be invaluable to parties, practitioners and the court alike; they are trained to identify challenges with communication and presentation, and work with a witness to ensure they are following proceedings and able to give their best evidence. Their duty is, at all times, to the court.

Reasonable adjustments/participation directions can be sought or agreed with or without an intermediary and will typically be the court’s starting point when considering how neurodivergent parties can be supported within proceedings. As ever, there will be adjustments that are more useful to some parties than others, but below is a non-exhaustive list of possible adjustments/considerations which should be discussed with the client:

• Separate waiting room/break-out room;

• Remote attendance or giving evidence via video link;

• Regular breaks;

• Attending with therapy/support dog;

• Permission to use colour overlays, magnifying rulers, etc in witness box;

• Directions around lighting in the court room;

• Provision of topics for cross-examination in advance;

• Advance tour of court room;

• The need for a ‘Ground Rules’ hearing ahead of any final hearing.

These are all things that generally require support from the court and a judge will determine whether they are needed. That said, many are standard participation directions that the court orders without issue. Other things that can be considered in advance of a hearing to try to reduce any challenges include:

• Setting out a detailed overview of how the day will proceed;

• Providing a detailed description of the area around the court, including possible break-out areas;

• Discussing how the client intends to self-regulate (i.e. music, headphones, fidget toys); 

• Agreeing how you will communicate during a hearing, especially in relation to the need for breaks;

• Discussing dress code in advance, and if sensory issues around clothing need to be accommodated, this should be raised with the judge on the day; 

• Considering attendance at a witness familiarisation course.

The better prepared a neurodivergent client is for what will happen on the day, the easier it will be for them to let you know what measures will be most useful. 

The case of Re JX (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing) [2025] EWFC 459 (B), which concluded at the end of 2025, shows how this is now working in practice. In that case, the judge acknowledged the mother’s ADHD and as part of a ground rules hearing, directed that she receives the topics for cross-examination in advance, and was permitted cue cards and regular breaks. Throughout, consideration was given to how the mother’s neurodivergence might impact on her evidence and account for possible inconsistencies that may otherwise affect credibility. 

The importance of creating a neurodivergent-friendly environment

If you are neurotypical, it will be impossible to comprehend the daily challenges faced by those who are neurodivergent and how this can impact on all areas of life. It can be exhausting and even debilitating. 

The suggestions above are not ground-breaking; they do not change the way we practice but simply provide for more understanding and flexibility where it is needed. 

If we fail to take positive (and often straightforward) action to allow neurodivergent parties to fully participate in proceedings which will have a lasting impact on their lives, then we risk denying them real access to justice. 

It is positive to see that a year on, progress has been made and the guidance is being adopted by the courts. Hopefully, in time, this will become second nature to all family law practitioners, and the needs of neurodivergent parties and clients will be compassionately and consistently met.