Guidance on the appointment of intermediaries and support for neurodiverse and vulnerable individuals in family proceedings

This summary, produced by Amanda Bewley and updated as of 7 November 2025, distils the latest judicial guidance on the appointment of intermediaries in family proceedings – especially where parties or witnesses are neurodiverse or otherwise vulnerable.

The document outlines essential considerations for advocates, clarifies the court’s obligations under Part 3A of the FPR 2010, and provides practical guidance on assessments, judicial decision-making, and best practices to ensure fair participation and evidence-giving.

My key takeaways from this guidance are:

1. Skilled advocacy informed by guidance on working with individuals who are neurodiverse, along with the Advocates Gateway Toolkits, will likely reduce the need for the appointment of intermediaries. Advocates should therefore be prepared to consider and address why those skills would not suffice in place of an intermediary;
2. The court must discern between whether an intermediary is required for the full hearing, specific hearings and/or when a party or witness is giving evidence;
3. A cognitive assessment or intermediary assessment recommending instruction of an intermediary is informative, not determinative, and the court must have regard to the factors set out in r.3A.7, and follow the guidance of Lord Justice Peter Jackson at paragraph 7 of Re M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440 in order to determine whether appointment of an intermediary is ‘necessary to achieve a fair hearing’ and ‘necessary to enable a party to participate in proceedings fairly by enhancing their ability to receive and answer questions that may be put to them.’ Earlier High Court decisions which set out a different test are not to be applied.

The guidance sets outs:

• Applicants for such assessments are expected to have read the Practice Guidance
• Lay advocates are neither an intermediary nor a McKenzie Friend, but are in a similar position to intermediaries. For the purposes of the guidance, “lay advocates are on all fours with intermediaries”
• Intermediaries fall under Part 3A FPR 2010 ‘Vulnerable Persons: Participation in Proceedings and Giving Evidence’. The court has a duty to consider the vulnerability of parties and witnesses, and how they can participate and give evidence. Where a party or witness is a victim of domestic abuse, or is at risk of the same, the court must consider making participation directions under r.3A.6.
• Advocates should consider how vulnerable parties and witnesses can engage with proceedings and give best evidence. Guidance on working with parties who are neurodiverse should be embedded into practice. Reasonable adjustments and support will likely reduce the number of cases where an intermediary is considered necessary.
• A child’s ability to comprehend language, no matter how advanced they appear, is likely to be less than an adult. Vulnerability is likely increased where a child is younger and/or a child has a learning difficulty, mental health difficulties, is neurodiverse, is affected by trauma or emotional health difficulties.
• Under Part 3A, measures include:
  o Provision of an intermediary to participate in proceedings [r.3A.8(1)(d)]
  o Provision of an intermediary to assist a party or witness to be questioned in court [r.3A.8(1)(e)]
• The role of an intermediary is set out, as found in FPR r.3A.8(1)(d) and r.3A.1
• Advocates should be familiar with Re M (A Child: Intermediaries) [2025] EWCA Civ 440 where it was held that the framework for deciding whether to appoint an intermediary is Part 3A, and that the Court will appoint an intermediary when ‘necessary to achieve a fair hearing.’ Advocates are reminded not to follow earlier decisions of the High Court which suggest a different test.
• Intermediaries are not Part 25 experts. The application is made under Part 18. ‘The question for the court in considering whether to direct an assessment by, or an appointment of, an intermediary is whether that direction of appointment is ‘necessary’ to enable a party to participate in proceedings fairly by enhancing their ability to receive and answer questions that may be put to them.’
• Part 3A addresses two distinct issues: participation in proceedings; and a party’s or witness’ ability to give evidence. One may exist without the other, or may both be present. It may not be necessary to have an intermediary attend the entirety of a hearing.
• When framing the direction for an intermediary assessment, the court should narrow the remit to that which is necessary for the hearing.
• Rule 3A.7 sets out factors to which the court must have regard. This is a mandatory checklist and essential reference point. The weight to afford to each factor is a matter for the court, making a broad and practical assessment. The court should follow paragraph 7 of Lord Justice Peter Jackson’s judgment in Re M when evaluating whether to instruct an intermediary.
• It may be that further information is required to address those factors before a decision can be made on necessity of assessment or appointment. The court might consider directing an intermediary preliminary assessment on whether vulnerability exists, or seek further information from those who know the individual. This should only be done with the direction of the court.
• All practitioners should be familiar with the Advocates Gateway, in particular Toolkit 13, which relates to vulnerable witnesses in the Family Court.
• Cognitive assessments are directed under Part 25 and the usual test of necessity applies. If a cognitive assessment is used to justify instruction of an intermediary, it must include:
  o Evidence that an intermediary is necessary to enable a party to participate in the proceedings fairly;
  o Provide reasons, and evidence in support, to explain why fair participation could not be achieved by alternative means, for example, the court applying the principles set out in the Advocates Gateway;
  o Participation at each stage of the proceedings must be explicitly considered:
   Case management hearings;
   Conferences/taking instructions; and
   Giving evidence at a contested hearing.
• ‘An assessment by an intermediary should normally be directed where there is a cognitive assessment supporting the use of an intermediary as being necessary to enable the party to engage with proceedings fairly.’
• The decision to appoint an intermediary is always for the Judge. Cognitive and intermediary assessments are informative, not determinative.