Family law is mid-pivot. Two shifts are quietly rewriting everyday practice: first, the hardening of NCDR from “encouraged” to effectively compulsory—with real costs exposure for unreasonable refusal. That changes how we front-load cases, document risk, and brief clients before a single form is filed.

Second, transparency has moved from pilot curiosity to routine expectation, now reaching into financial remedies. That reframes how we draft, evidence, argue TROs, and manage reputational risk alongside litigation risk.

This piece doesn’t rehash basics; it drills into what these changes mean at file level—open letters, MIAM/NCDR audit trails, evidence architecture, advocacy on scope—and how to turn them into leverage at FHDRA, FDA, and FDR. If you adjust your defaults, you’ll save cost, time, and collateral damage.

1) NCDR isn’t optional any more (and costs will bite)

From 29 April 2024, amendments to the FPR re-tooled Part 3 (MIAMs and “non-court dispute resolution”) and Part 28 (costs). The definition of NCDR is now deliberately broad—think mediation, arbitration, private FDR, ENE— and the court’s powers to push parties into it, or adjourn to make room for it, are explicit. Crucially, unreasonable refusal to attend a MIAM or engage in NCDR can now be punished in costs: in financial remedies the “no order as to costs” starting point can be displaced under r.28.3(7). That is a material leverage change for practitioners planning case strategy and client messaging.

This dovetails with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil: courts can lawfully order or stay proceedings for ADR, provided Article 6 isn’t impaired and the order is proportionate. While Churchill was a civil case, family judges are already drawing on its logic—expect firmer directions steering parties into NCDR where safe and appropriate. The practical takeaway: if you’re advising a reluctant client, record clear, case-specific reasons (risk, urgency, entrenched coercive control, prior failed attempts); otherwise you’re inviting adverse costs.

On the ground, this means building NCDR into your default case plan rather than treating it as an afterthought. Use the “natural gaps”: between safeguarding and FHDRA, or between FDA and FDR, to run a private ENE or mediator-led session. For higher-asset FR cases, a one-day private FDR remains cost-efficient compared with a drift to PTR. For children work, have a standing brief for mediators on coercive control flags so they can triage suitability quickly. And don’t forget the funding lever: the government’s Family Mediation Voucher Scheme has been extended to March 2026—not game-changing money in FR, but invaluable where child-arrangements skirmishes are poisoning the well.

Finally, costs risk management now starts pre-issue. If you’re refusing mediation, reply with a reasoned open letter and a without-prejudice offer proposing an alternative (e.g., child-inclusive mediation with shuttle, or a capped-fee ENE). Make it easy for a judge to conclude your client’s stance was proportionate.

2) Transparency is here—and it includes money cases

The Family Court Reporting Pilot has moved from a curiosity to business-as-usual. National roll-out began 27 January 2025, via rule and practice-direction changes, with a staged commencement: public law first; private law from 1 May 2025; and lay-justices lists by 29 September 2025. The practical effect is that accredited journalists and legal bloggers may report what they see and hear, subject to a Transparency Order (TRO) preserving anonymity (especially of children) and restricting publication of core identifiers. If you were waiting for this to fade, it hasn’t.

Financial remedies have their own transparency track. The Financial Remedies Transparency Pilot started on 29 January 2024 in Birmingham, Leeds and the CFC, was extended to the RCJ on 11 November 2024, and rolled out nationwide from 29 January 2025; it now runs to 29 January 2026. Practically, reporters can attend and report FR hearings under anonymisation, and courts are encouraged to facilitate responsible reporting rather than default to blanket privacy. This changes how you draft, evidence and argue “private” money cases.

What to change in practice:

• Client preparation: your first conference should now include a “public reporting risk” script. Explain TROs in plain English—what stays private (names, DOBs, addresses, school/medical identifiers) and what might still surface (process, judicial criticism, outcome contours). Have a standing client handout mirroring the President’s guidance so clients don’t learn about transparency from a journalist’s email.
  Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

• Pleadings and evidence: draft on the assumption a responsible reporter could lawfully summarise the shape of the dispute. Strip out gratuitous personal detail; keep relevance tight; isolate sensitive material in schedules that are easy to ring-fence. For FR, think twice before loading narrative into position statements that do more reputational harm than forensic good.

• Advocacy: be ready to argue TRO scope on your feet. Arrive with a short proposed order tailored to the case (e.g., specific restrictions for rare conditions, small schools, niche businesses). Judges are receptive to precise, proportionate limits—not generic pleas for secrecy.

• Reputation and settlement: transparency subtly re-weights risk for high-profile parties. Leverage that at FDR: the credible prospect of accurate but unwelcome reporting can concentrate minds (and open wallets). Conversely, if your client is reputationally exposed, build a settlement track that closes early, before hearings where reporting would be permitted.

The bigger picture is convergence: stronger NCDR powers plus routine transparency nudge us toward earlier, more disciplined resolution and cleaner on-the-record hearings when settlement fails. Practitioners who systematise NCDR (with audit-ready reasons to opt out) and who treat TROs as a technical tool—not a panic button—will spare clients cost, delay and collateral damage in 2025–26.