Neurodivergent individuals face unique barriers in legal proceedings. This essay evaluates whether the UK’s legal and procedural framework ensures equal access to justice for this group, focusing on family law. It examines relevant statutes, practice directions, and guidance to assess how effectively they support meaningful participation.
Understanding neurodivergence
Neurodivergence refers to natural variations in how people think, process information, and interact with the world. Affecting up to one in five people, it includes conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and Tourette’s syndrome. Neurodivergence is not a disorder or illness, but a form of cognitive diversity that requires tailored adjustments to ensure equal participation in legal proceedings.
Legal framework & practice guidance
The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), particularly Part 3A, provide the statutory basis for accommodating vulnerable individuals, including those who are neurodivergent, within family proceedings. Part 3A defines ‘vulnerable persons’ broadly, capturing those whose ability to participate or give evidence may be diminished due to a range of factors, including many neurodivergent conditions. Courts are under a duty to identify vulnerability at the earliest opportunity and consider whether it may impair participation or the quality of evidence. Where appropriate, participation directions, such as the use of intermediaries, live links, or changes to courtroom arrangements, must be considered to support effective involvement.
Practice Direction 3AA (PD 3AA) supplements Part 3A by requiring courts and practitioners to consider adjustments tailored to each individual’s needs. It also promotes a collaborative approach between the court and all parties to support participation without fear, distress, or misunderstanding.
The Family Justice Council’s (FJC’s) ‘Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System for Practitioners’ highlights the importance of recognising strengths as well as challenges, counters stereotypes, and promotes a strengths-based approach. It warns that failing to accommodate neurodivergence may breach Art 6 and Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Art 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Assessment & implementation of reasonable adjustments
The legal framework promotes early, informed, and individualised assessment to enable meaningful participation. Guidance encourages holistic evaluations by qualified professionals, with support needs identified without delay, including in the absence of a formal diagnosis. Crucially, suspected neurodivergence is sufficient to trigger adjustments. Where such support is not implemented, access to justice is at risk.
Reasonable adjustments, mandated by law and reinforced in practice guidance, include breaks, simplified language, adjusted pacing, accessible materials, and use of intermediaries. Ground rules hearings are required where necessary to plan adjustments and manage cross-examination appropriately. The FJC notes that many such adjustments also enhance the experience of all court users. This demonstrates that improving accessibility for neurodivergent individuals often results in a more inclusive and effective justice system overall.
The guidance promotes a positive understanding of neurodiversity, viewing it as a difference rather than a deficit. It encourages recognition of the strengths neurodivergent individuals may bring, and makes clear that the goal is not to diminish neurodivergence, but to support meaningful participation and uphold equal access to justice.
Does the legal framework & practice guidance achieve its aims?
The legal framework and guidance in the UK offer a strong foundation for supporting neurodivergent individuals in legal proceedings. The recognition of vulnerability, the duty to make participation directions, and the emphasis on early identification are all positive steps towards ensuring equality. There is a clear alignment between the legal requirements and best practice guidance in advocating for individualised, flexible support.
However, the effectiveness of these measures depends on their implementation. Research cited in the FJC Guidance highlights persistent barriers, including limited awareness, inconsistent practice, and insufficient training. Many neurodivergent individuals remain undiagnosed when they enter the family courts, and there is evidence that legal professionals sometimes lack confidence or training in identifying and responding to neurodivergence. Practical barriers, including delays in assessment and the risk of adverse inferences being drawn from neurodivergent behaviour, can still undermine the effectiveness of the system.
Despite these challenges, the framework’s progress is evident. The law’s proactive approach, the existence of comprehensive guidance, and increasing awareness among practitioners are driving significant improvements. The availability of rapid screening assessments, the growth of networks such as the Family Law Advice for the Neurodivergent Community (FLANC), and initiatives like the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower Scheme demonstrate a genuine commitment to inclusion and equality in practice.
Neurodiversity is increasingly recognised as part of human variation, with legal and professional practices shifting from deficit-based models to approaches that uphold dignity, inclusion, and fair participation in justice.
Strengthening practice to realise legal aims
Although the legal framework is well established, further reform is needed to ensure its aims are realised in practice. FLANC advocates compulsory training for family justice professionals, similar to the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training now adopted across the NHS. Consistent education would improve awareness, reduce bias, and strengthen support. Procedural improvements such as revising court forms and wider use of tools like All About Me documents and Behaviour Passports would help identify and meet individual needs. Enhancing communication through methods such as PECS, Makaton, or Social Stories would also increase accessibility for neurodivergent children. These measures, along with stronger collaboration between the justice system and public services, would help ensure the framework meets its aim of providing equal access to justice for neurodivergent individuals.
Concluding assessment
The legal framework and guidance for supporting neurodivergent individuals in family proceedings are comprehensive and well developed. The duties set out in the FPR 2010 and PD 3AA, alongside the FJC’s guidance, provide a strong foundation for promoting equality and inclusion. While challenges in implementation and awareness persist, the framework is clearly progressing towards its aim. Continued education, training, and cultural change remain essential to achieving full and effective participation. Facilitating neurodivergent individuals to use their strengths can reduce fear and affirm capability, while challenging stereotypes promotes understanding of cognitive difference as a valued form of human diversity. On balance, the framework is fit for purpose and is steadily advancing equal access to justice.
Monique Simone Fremder LLB Hons, Inner Temple Scholar (Benefactor, Exhibition, and Duke of Edinburgh Scholarships). This essay is the winning entry of this year’s Professor Jo Delahunty KC Essay Competition, a new initiative within the Bridging the Bar Academy programme.
