From 15 July 2026, a local authority (LA) in England must (subject to a best-interests exception) offer a Family Group Decision-Making (FGDM) meeting before it makes an application for a Care or Supervision Order under Section 31ZA of the Children Act 1989.

If the offer is accepted by at least one person to who it is made, the LA must ordinarily arrange the meeting to be held before issue – and the LA must also include the offer in the Letter Before Proceedings (LBP), which is a further necessary step before an application for an order such as a care or supervision order.

FGDM as a 'family right': The policy context and why it matters for legal challenge

The package of children’s social care reform of which the revision to the Children Act are part is deliberately built on 'family first' principles. FGDM is intended to maximise the prospects of children being kept within their birth families and to reduce the need for care proceedings. Josh McAlistair’s report on children’s social care stated FGDM should be “a family’s legal right”.

Many authorities have chosen to use FGDM as part of their process prior to it becoming a legal requirement, although the review into children’s social care found variation in practice.  The explanatory note to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 talk bout the duty to undertake FGDM as being partly a step towards consistency. 

However, the emphasis placed on it’s role as a family ‘right’ hints at the potential importance it may come to take on in relation to lawful decision making, and human rights challenges to decisions relating to children and their families. 

The legal framework: How the duty to offer and hold FGDM works in practice

1. The 'must offer / must hold if accepted' structure

Before making a Part IV application, the authority must offer an FGDM meeting to the child’s parents and to any other person with parental responsibility. If the offer is accepted by at least one person to whom it is made, the authority must arrange for the meeting to be held before the application is made. 

2. Best interests is the statutory safety valve

The duties to offer and/or to hold do not apply where the authority considers it would not be in the child’s best interests for an FGDM meeting to be offered or (as the case may be) held. Best interests also appears again in the definition of 'family network': the authority decides who it considers appropriate to attend, having regard to the child’s best interests. In practice, these are the two judgements most likely to require a short, defensible rationale on file. 

3. Purpose of FGDM

The statute defines an FGDM meeting as one held to enable the child’s family network to discuss the child’s welfare needs and make a proposal in response to concerns about the child’s welfare. The explanatory material behind the Act describes the intended outcome in more 'policy' language: a family network coming together to develop a family-led plan in response to the authority’s concerns. That statutory purpose is important for a public matters audience because, once a step is designed to generate and test alternatives, it is easy to see how future challenges/complaints may focus on whether the authority’s approach was capable of achieving that purpose, not simply whether the meeting was mentioned. 

4. Child participation / wishes and feelings (often overlooked)

Where the authority considers it appropriate, the child may attend the meeting. Separately, when exercising functions under s31ZA, the authority must (so far as reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings and give them due consideration, having regard to age and understanding. Even a short record showing how those duties were considered can prevent this becoming an avoidable point of attack later. 

5. The 'LBP hook' that makes this legally testable

The authority must include the offer in the letter before proceedings, and s31ZA defines the letter before proceedings as the letter sent to the parents (or any other PR-holder) before the authority applies for a Part IV order. This is a key practical point for legal teams: FGDM compliance is now hard-wired into a document that routinely ends up in court bundles and is easy to audit retrospectively.

The statutory guidance: What 'effective' FGDM actually looks like in practice

Some of the clearest indications of what is expected of effective FGDM is found in the definition within the Working Together guidance. 

This makes it clear that the family network participating should have “all the resources, adequate preparation, relevant information and a safe and appropriate environment to make a plan in response to concerns about a child’s safety and wellbeing, working alongside skilled professionals.”

The guidance suggests that an independent coordinator should be considered, and that “private family time” should be built in to the process (subject to any safeguarding considerations). 

While it is recognised that a number of models exist, the guidance highlights the strong evidence for a family group conference (FGC) model.

Family network is also defined in the guidance, including relatives, connected people rand family friends with a connection to the child.  

Legal implications of FGDM for local authorities

PD12A (the Public Law Outline) requires the court at issue/allocation to check compliance with the pre-proceedings checklist and service of any missing annex documents. At its simplest, the lack of FGDM means an essential prerequisite to children’s public law proceedings has not been complied with, potentially delaying or derailing proceedings with adverse impact on the interests of the child concerned. 

However, the strong evidence of the benefits of FGDM and the policy context suggests this may come to be seen as more than a mere process breach. FGDM is being positioned as an essential stap to making sound, properly informed decisions. Failure to engage in FGDM may lead to decisions being challenged as being unsound. This may be relied on beyond the Family Court, for example a member of the family network excluded from FGDM may use this as the basis to challenge a decision not to seek an Order. 

By extension (and in light of discussion of FGDM as a ‘right’ in the policy underlaying the reforms) Article 8 (interference with family life) and Article 6 (fair process) claims might arise where family members are unhappy with the FGDM process or its outcome. 

Few processes run by local authorities are as emotive as decision making in connection with children and their families, and there are often competing views as to what is best for a child. Those opposing decisions will readily challenge (and tendency being increased by access to AI). FGDM has potential to become a ripe ground for legal challenge within and beyond the Family Court.   

What councils should do now: Practical steps to evidence FGDM compliance

1. LBP and template audit (legal team-owned)

Update LBP templates and pre-proceedings packs so they (a) clearly record that an FGDM meeting is being offered and (b) capture who it is offered to (parents and any other PR-holder). If your LBP wording hasn’t changed since July 2026, this is the fastest place for a technical non-compliance point to arise.

2. A one-page s31ZA compliance note (governance-friendly)

Adopt a standard 's31ZA note' for the file / legal planning bundle:

• Date/method of offer; recipients; response (accepted/declined/no response).
• If not offered/held: best interests rationale (child-focused).
• How the family network invite list was decided (best interests).
• Arrangements to make information available in advance, and support reflection by family network members. 
• Whether child attendance was considered.
• How wishes/feelings were ascertained and considered.
• What (if any) proposal emerged and how it fed into the issue decision. 

The template should support careful reflection where decisions are made not to offer or hold an FGDM meeting, or to exclude members of the family network who may wish to be involved. The expectation will be that, wherever possible, social workers are actively looking for ways to overcome obstacles and concerns to FGDM. 

3. Avoid blanket practice rules on 'when FGDM happens'

Because the statute builds in discretion via best interests (and because 'family network' is defined through LA judgement having regard to best interests), the safer position is to avoid blanket exclusions and instead record an individualised rationale where FGDM is not offered/held or where attendance is limited for safeguarding reasons. 

Conclusion

For councils, FGDM is now a statutory gateway step prior to Court proceedings, and a stem which will underpin good decision making in childrens social care. It is important to recognise that the move to put this on a statutory footing places FGDM in a different position to previous voluntary schemes and may mean that FGDM becomes increasingly prominent in a range of challenges to decisions relating to children.