Proceedings under the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020

Key provisions of DDSA 2020

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) 6 April 2022 and has been referred to as the biggest reform of divorce law in England and Wales for 50 years. It removed the requirement to establish one of the five facts contained in section 1(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to establish irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and allows married couples to divorce without assigning blame, popularly known as ‘no-fault divorce’. There are equivalent provisions amending the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). The aim of the changes is to reduce conflict between couples who are either married or are in a civil partnership.

DDSA 2020 makes significant amendments to MCA 1973 and CPA 2004.

In summary, with effect from 6 April 2022, changes that were introduced by DDSA 2020 included that:

•
while the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage or civil partnership is retained as the sole ground for divorce or dissolution, the requirement to prove evidence of one of the five facts under

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—5 March 2026

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analyses of the matrimonialisation of pension assets based on common intention and the President's guidance on experts and alienating behaviour in private children cases. Details of amendments to Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), PD 27A in relation to bundles (together with new guidance for preparing court bundles for family proceedings published on 2 March 2026) and FPR 2010, PD 30A in relation to appeals are included. Recent judgments on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, post-adoption contact and disclosure of asylum documents are also considered. Two new Practice Notes have been added on tenancies and relationship breakdown, together with a procedural guide on transfer of tenancy.

President's judgment giving guidance on experts and alienating behaviour in private children cases (Re Y)

Family analysis: The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, considered an application to set aside findings made against a mother in 2019 that had led to the transfer of her children's residence and no contact orders. He was critical of the way allegations of alienating behaviour had been managed and determined and concluded that every agency involved in the case could be seen to be at fault. He applied and upheld the December 2024 Family Justice Council Guidance on alienating behaviour, the September 2023 guidance issued jointly by the Family Justice Council and the British Psychological Society on the standards and competencies expected of psychologists acting as expert witnesses in family proceedings, and his earlier judgment in Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert). He also upheld P v M and O v C. The President provides clear guidance on instructing expert psychologists, alienating behaviour and challenging previous findings. Sacha Lee, associate at Dawson Cornwell LLP considers the decision.

New guidance for preparing court bundles for family proceedings

Family analysis: On 2 March 2026, the Office of the President of the Family Division published new guidance for litigants in person on preparing court bundles for family proceedings to accompany the amended Family Procedure Rules 2010, PD 27A, which is in force from 2 March 2026. Practitioners should note that this supersedes the guidance on e-bundles for use in the Family Court and Family Division dated 21 December 2021, and the general guidance on electronic court bundles dated 29 November 2021 no longer applies in the context of family proceedings. The guidance applies to court cases in England and Wales which are being heard in the Family Court or the Family Division of the High Court (wherever the court may be sitting).

High Court dismisses DoLS application where parent consents to deprivation of liberty (Medway Council v The Father and another)

Local Government analysis: The High Court dismissed the local authority’s application to deprive a fifteen-year-old girl of her liberty for twelve months. The court affirmed the ‘consents [the girl’s] father provided in this case to the deprivation of her liberty are all considered to be in her best interests’ and fell ‘within the zone of his parental responsibility’. The authority’s application was therefore dismissed as the girl was ‘not being deprived of her liberty and the authorisations the local authority seeks [were] not necessary’. This case provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles and relevant case law concerning the meaning of confinement, the zone of parental responsibility and the requirement to consider the specific facts and characteristics of the individual child when determining whether a parent has acted in a child’s best interests. Written by Nicola Wheater, associate at HCR Law.