Family court delays: the latest private law data
Key facts
- Private law children cases took an average of 35 weeks to reach a disposal in January to March 2026, down five weeks on the year.
- 52% of cases were dealt with within 26 weeks, up seven percentage points, so the courts are getting faster.
- But demand is rising faster still: case starts rose 16% to 15,534, while disposals fell 17% to 10,519.
- For the first time the data reports the open caseload: 40,971 cases were still open at the end of March 2026, up 11%.
- Mediation, by contrast, is usually measured in weeks and a handful of sessions, not months or years.
Delay is one of the main reasons separating parents look for an alternative to court. The latest Ministry of Justice figures tell a mixed story: the family courts are processing children cases faster than a year ago, yet the backlog is still growing because more cases are arriving than leaving. This page sets out the numbers, the longer trend, and why mediation is measured in weeks rather than months. It complements our comparison of mediation versus court.
Understanding the difference between speed and volume is the key to reading this data. A court can get quicker at handling each case and still fall further behind if the number of new cases climbs faster than it can clear them. That is exactly what happened in early 2026.
This page is part of our family mediation statistics hub, where every figure is dated and sourced.
How long children cases take now
The headline timeliness figures improved in January to March 2026. The average private law case reached a disposal in 35 weeks, five weeks quicker than the same quarter a year earlier, and just over half were resolved inside the 26-week benchmark.
| Timeliness measure | Jan to Mar 2026 | Change on the year |
|---|---|---|
| Average time to disposal | 35 weeks | Down 5 weeks |
| Cases dealt with within 26 weeks | 52% | Up 7 percentage points |
At 35 weeks, the typical private law case still takes the better part of a year to conclude. For a child, that is a very long time to wait for settled arrangements, and it is why the improvement, while real, does not remove the case for resolving matters out of court where it is safe to do so.
It is also worth remembering that an average hides a wide spread. Some cases resolve at an early hearing in a few months, while others, particularly those involving disputed allegations or expert assessments, run well beyond a year. The 35-week figure sits in the middle of that range, so a straightforward case may finish sooner and a contested one much later. Nobody can promise where a given case will fall, which is part of the uncertainty that makes a faster, more predictable alternative attractive.
Why the backlog is still growing
The other half of the picture is volume, and here the direction is the wrong way. In January to March 2026 the courts received far more cases than they resolved.
| Measure | Jan to Mar 2026 | Change on the year |
|---|---|---|
| Private law case starts | 15,534 | Up 16% |
| Private law disposals | 10,519 | Down 17% |
| New orders applied for | 29,793 | Up 15% |
| Orders made | 27,663 | Down 4% |
When 15,534 cases start but only 10,519 are disposed of in the same quarter, the queue lengthens. That is why, for the first time, the data now reports the open caseload directly, giving a clearer measure of the backlog than timeliness alone.
The open caseload: a new measure
The January to March 2026 release introduced a measure of how many cases are open at a point in time. It shows the scale of the backlog and how long cases have been waiting.
| Open caseload (end March 2026) | Figure | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Total open private law cases | 40,971 | Up 11% on 36,939 |
| Open under 26 weeks | 23,492 | 57% |
| Open 100 weeks or more | 1,692 | 4% |
Most open cases, 57%, had been waiting under 26 weeks, which is encouraging. But 1,692 cases had been running for 100 weeks or more, close to two years, and those long-running cases are often the most bitterly contested. The overall total, 40,971, was up 11% on the 36,939 open a year earlier. In short, the courts are working through cases more efficiently, but demand is climbing even faster, so the backlog keeps building.
The value of this new measure is that it captures something the older figures missed. Timeliness only tells you about cases that have already finished, which can flatter a system that is quietly accumulating unfinished work. The open caseload shows the work in progress, including the long tail of cases that have not concluded and so never appear in a disposal time. Publishing it puts the scale of the backlog in plain view for the first time, and the picture it gives is of a system running to stand still.
The longer trend
This is not a new problem. Private law demand has risen for years, and the switch to remote and hybrid hearings, staffing pressures and the aftermath of the pandemic all lengthened waits. The recent improvement in timeliness reflects sustained effort to clear older cases, but the rising number of new applications, up 16% in the latest quarter, keeps pulling in the opposite direction. This is a large part of why the courts and the rules now push families towards non-court dispute resolution before a contested hearing.
It is worth remembering how the 26-week benchmark came about. It was set as a target for care cases and has since become a general yardstick for how long a family case should take. Against that standard, an average of 35 weeks and only 52% of cases finishing inside 26 weeks show a system still running well over its own benchmark, even after a year of improvement. The gap between the target and the reality is the space that non-court routes are meant to fill.
The other long-run feature is that demand has proved remarkably resilient. Even as the courts have worked to clear cases, new applications have kept coming, driven by the underlying number of families separating and by a growing willingness to bring disputes about children to court. Without an alternative route, that combination would push waits up indefinitely, which is precisely why mediation and other forms of non-court dispute resolution have moved to the centre of family policy.
Since 29 April 2024, changes to Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules let the family court adjourn a case so the parties can try non-court dispute resolution, and allow a judge to weigh an unreasonable refusal to try it when deciding who pays the costs. With demand rising and the caseload at 40,971, that expectation to try mediation first is only likely to strengthen.
Why mediation is measured in weeks
Against waits measured in months, family mediation stands out because it is measured in weeks. Most cases finish within three to five joint sessions, often inside two to three months of the first meeting, because the timetable is set by the family rather than a court list. There is no queue to join, and sessions are booked to suit both people.
| Route | Typical time to resolution |
|---|---|
| Contested private law court case | Around 35 weeks to a disposal, sometimes far longer |
| Family mediation | Three to five sessions, often within two to three months |
The contrast is not just about speed. A shorter process is usually cheaper and less stressful, and an arrangement the parents build together tends to last better than one imposed by a judge. See how many sessions you need and how mediation works for what to expect.
The mediation contrast
If your dispute is about children, mediation avoids the queue entirely. A MIAM can usually be arranged within days, and many families reach a parenting plan in a few weeks, while a court case on the same issue could still be waiting months later.
Two parents had been on a court waiting list for several months over where their child would spend the school holidays, with the first hearing still weeks away. They agreed to try mediation in the meantime. In two joint sessions they settled the holiday pattern and a plan for handovers, wrote it into a parenting plan, and withdrew the application before it reached a judge. What the court had not yet listed, mediation resolved in under a month.
What the falling disposals tell us
The drop in disposals, down 17% to 10,519, deserves a closer look, because at first glance it seems to contradict the improvement in timeliness. The two measures answer different questions. Timeliness looks at how long the cases that finished took to get there, while disposals count how many finished at all. A court can resolve its remaining cases more quickly, which improves the average, while still closing fewer cases overall in a busy quarter. When that happens at the same time as a 16% rise in new cases, the open caseload has only one way to go, which is up.
This is why the new open caseload measure matters so much. On its own, a falling average time to disposal could be read as good news, and in part it is. But set beside 15,534 new cases and only 10,519 closed, it becomes clear that the system is taking in more work than it is completing. The 11% rise in the open caseload, to 40,971, is the truest single measure of the pressure the family courts are under.
Why delay hits children hardest
Behind every one of these cases is at least one child waiting for settled arrangements. A wait of 35 weeks, close to nine months, is a long time in any adult’s life, but for a young child it can be a significant share of their memory. Uncertainty about where they live and when they see each parent is unsettling, and prolonged conflict between parents is one of the factors most strongly linked to poorer outcomes for children. Speed, in family cases, is not just an administrative goal; it has a direct human cost.
That is a large part of why the courts increasingly expect families to try to resolve matters themselves first, and why an arrangement built by the parents tends to serve children better than one imposed after a long contest. A parenting plan agreed in mediation can be in place in weeks, giving a child settled arrangements while a court case on the same issue might still be months from a first full hearing.
What this means if you are facing a court wait
The data carries a practical message. The courts are improving, but they remain busy, and a contested children case can still take the better part of a year, sometimes far longer for the hardest cases. If your situation is safe for it, mediation offers a much faster route to settled arrangements, and trying it first is now what the courts expect. Our family court statistics hub sets the delays alongside the wider picture, and our mediation versus court comparison weighs the two routes side by side.
Frequently asked questions
How long do family court cases take in 2026?
In January to March 2026, private law children cases took an average of 35 weeks to reach a disposal, down five weeks on the year, with 52% dealt with within 26 weeks.
Are family court delays getting better or worse?
Both, in a sense. The courts are handling each case faster, but more cases are arriving than leaving, so the open caseload rose 11% to 40,971 at the end of March 2026.
How many family cases are waiting?
For the first time the data reports the open caseload: 40,971 private law cases were open at the end of March 2026, of which 57% had been open under 26 weeks and 1,692 for 100 weeks or more.
Why is the backlog growing if cases are faster?
Because demand is rising faster than the courts can clear it. Case starts rose 16% to 15,534 while disposals fell 17% to 10,519, so the queue lengthened even as timeliness improved.
Is mediation faster than court?
Usually, yes. Mediation is measured in weeks and a handful of sessions, whereas a contested private law case averaged 35 weeks to a disposal in early 2026, and some run far longer.
How long does mediation take?
Most cases finish within three to five joint sessions, often inside two to three months, because the family sets the timetable rather than joining a court list.
Do the courts expect me to try mediation first?
In most cases, yes. Since April 2024 the Family Procedure Rules let a judge pause a case for non-court dispute resolution and weigh an unreasonable refusal to try it when deciding costs.
Sources
- Ministry of Justice, Family Court Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2026, gov.uk. Accessed 9 July 2026.
- Ministry of Justice, Family Court Statistics Quarterly collection, gov.uk. Accessed 9 July 2026.
- Family Procedure Rules, Part 3 (non-court dispute resolution), justice.gov.uk. Accessed 9 July 2026.