Family courts play a crucial role in resolving disputes related to children, divorce, finances and
family relationships.
In England, judges in the Family Court of England and Wales must make decisions in
emotionally charged situations, often involving high levels of conflict.
This article, written by Anna Montgomery, Director and Case Manager at Ask Montgomery
Advocates in London, explores how family court judges perceive the parties involved, how
they understand conflict, and how behaviour influences judicial decision-making.
The analysis is based on judicial guidance, and research from socio-legal studies.
1. Introduction
Family law cases differ significantly from other areas of law. They involve personal
relationships, strong emotions, and long-term consequences for children and families. Judges
are required not only to apply legal rules but also to assess human behaviour, credibility,
and the dynamics of conflict.
Understanding how judges perceive parties and their behaviour helps explain why certain
decisions are made and how courts aim to protect the welfare of children.
2. How Judges Perceive the Parties
Judges in the family court do not view parties simply as “winners” and “losers.” Instead, they
usually see parents or former partners as individuals under stress. Many judges recognise that
fear, anger, and anxiety can affect how people present themselves in court.
However, judges are also trained to remain neutral. They focus on:
• consistency in evidence,
• willingness to cooperate,
• honesty and openness,
• ability to prioritise a child’s needs over personal conflict.
Judges are aware that some parties may struggle to express themselves clearly, especially
litigants in person (those without legal representation). For this reason, poor communication
skills are not automatically interpreted as dishonesty.
3. Judicial Understanding of Conflict
Conflict is a central feature of many family court cases. Judges generally distinguish
between:
• situational conflict, caused by separation or sudden change, and
• entrenched or high-conflict behaviour, which is ongoing and resistant to resolution.
Judges often view prolonged conflict as harmful, particularly for children. Research and
judicial guidance emphasise that exposure to parental conflict can negatively affect a child’s
emotional and psychological development. As a result, courts tend to discourage adversarial
behaviour and encourage cooperation, mediation, and child-focused solutions.
4. Behaviour in Court and Its Impact
Behaviour plays an important role in how judges assess cases, but not in a simplistic way.
Judges are cautious not to confuse emotional distress with aggression or manipulation.
Nonetheless, certain behaviours are taken seriously, such as:
• refusal to follow court orders,
• deliberate obstruction of contact,
• controlling or intimidating conduct,
• repeated false allegations.
Calm, respectful behaviour and a demonstrated willingness to compromise are often
seen as indicators of a party’s capacity to act in a child’s best interests. Conversely,
persistent hostility may raise concerns about a person’s ability to support a healthy co
parenting relationship.
5. The Child-Centred Perspective
A defining feature of the family court in England is its child-centred approach. Judges
consistently emphasise that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. This means
that adult grievances, even when understandable, are secondary.
From a judicial perspective, parents who are able to separate their personal conflict from their
parenting role are viewed more positively. Judges often look for signs that a party can:
• support the child’s relationship with the other parent,
• manage emotions responsibly,
• respect boundaries and court decisions.
6. Discussion
Judges in the family court operate at the intersection of law, psychology, and social reality.
Their perceptions are shaped by legal training, experience, and awareness of the emotional
context of family disputes. While neutrality is essential, judges are not blind to behaviour
patterns or conflict dynamics. Instead, they actively interpret them through the lens of child
welfare and long-term outcomes.
7. Conclusion
In England’s family justice system, judges perceive parties not merely as legal opponents but
as individuals navigating complex emotional and relational challenges. Conflict and
behaviour are assessed carefully, with a strong emphasis on cooperation and the best interests
of the child. Understanding these judicial perspectives can help parties engage more
constructively with the court process and ultimately support fairer and more effective
outcomes.
8. Common Mistakes Made by Parties: Examples from
Practice
A frequent challenge observed by family court judges is that many parties unintentionally
undermine their own case through avoidable mistakes.
One common error is focusing on blame rather than solutions. For example, a parent may
spend large portions of a hearing describing past wrongs committed by the other party, while
failing to explain how their proposed arrangements would benefit the child. Judges tend to view
this as a lack of child-focused thinking.
Another mistake involves non-compliance with court orders. Even when a party believes
an order is unfair, ignoring it or selectively following it is often interpreted as a sign of poor
judgment or unwillingness to cooperate. Similarly, emotional outbursts, aggressive language
in emails, or hostile behaviour in court can negatively affect how a party is perceived, even if
the underlying concerns are legitimate.
Judges also frequently encounter parties who provide excessive evidence—such as
hundreds of messages, screenshots, or recordings—without clearly explaining their relevance.
This can overwhelm the court and obscure genuinely important points. From a judicial
perspective, clarity, proportionality, and a calm presentation of facts are far more persuasive
than volume or emotional intensity.
9. Polish Parties in the English Family Court: Behaviour in a Different Legal System
Polish nationals appearing before the family court in England often face additional challenges
linked to cultural expectations and differences between legal systems.
Many Polish parties come from a legal culture where courts are perceived as more formal,
hierarchical, and authority-driven. As a result, some expect the judge to take a more
investigative or directive role, rather than relying heavily on the parties’ own evidence and
cooperation.
Judges may observe that Polish litigants initially struggle with the strong emphasis placed
on communication, compromise, and mediation within the English system. For example,
a parent may interpret encouragement to cooperate with the other party as a sign that the court
is minimising past harm or conflict. This can lead to frustration, mistrust, or defensive
behaviour.
Language barriers and indirect communication styles can also affect perception.
Emotional intensity, raised voices, or rigid insistence on “justice” rather than child welfare may
be misunderstood as inflexibility or hostility. However, judges with experience of cross
cultural cases increasingly recognise that such behaviour often reflects stress, unfamiliarity
with the system, and fear of losing control rather than deliberate non-cooperation.
When Polish parties receive appropriate guidance and support, they often adapt well to the
English family justice framework. Those who understand that the court prioritises the child’s
future over past grievances are more likely to engage constructively and achieve more positive
outcomes.
London, 2026
