Family Law Act applications and the President’s Guidance

Are you up to date with how to apply for non-molestation orders?  Jenny Beck KC (Beck Fitzgerald), and Charlotte Baker (4PB) join us to bring us up-to-date, and discuss Family Law Act Remedies.  Jenny was the Chair of the Family Justice Council that wrote the report providing Best Practice Guidance*.  She starts by telling us why the guidance was necessary: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FJC-Best-Practice-Guidance-for-Practitioners-Making-an-Application-for-a-Protective-Injunction-under-the-FLA-1996-with-Annex-1.pdf Charlotte then explains how the President’s guidance should change our practice: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/the-pfds-guidance-2026-non-molestation-orders-under-the-family-law-act-1996-and-the-fjcs-best-practice-guidance-for-practitioners-on-making-an-application-for-a-protective-injuncti/ Charlotte and Jenny talk about the new draft orders.  The orders no longer have the standard terms ‘not to use or threaten violence’ and ‘not to harass, intimidate and pester’.  Jenny tells us they were removed because using and threatening violence is a criminal offence and not what these orders should be about, and it is hard to prove harassing, intimidating and pestering someone.  However, she makes clear that these terms can be added back into the draft order if required.  Jenny tells us that the respondent’s details should be included on the face of the order to make the order effective.  Jenny tells us about the procedural change in the President’s guidance.  Namely, that the initial application should be heard on the papers, if that is not accepted it should be listed within a day for the applicant to make representations.  Charlotte tells us that when making an application for a non-molestation order that you need to be able to explain what is happening right now that justifies protection and why it is that an order is required.  We discuss high acrimony cases and what to do when an application for a non-molestation order is made, and the respondent attends Court accusing the applicant of being just as bad. Both Charlotte and Jenny raise concerned about the times when Judges have tried to resolve matters by cross-undertakings.  We finally discuss whether practitioners should be advising their client to go to the Police for a DAPO, why it is that clients may prefer not to the police and why it is this form of remedy needs to exist for victim-survivors who prefer not to make a complaint to the police. *Although Jenny joined us in her personal capacity today.