Could ADHD be shaping how women and girls are judged in family court?

Aspiring barrister Alex Delaney examines how undiagnosed ADHD can be mistaken for unreliability or poor engagement in care proceedings

Imagine a parent repeatedly missing appointments, struggling to organise paperwork, becoming emotional during meetings and appearing inconsistent when recounting events.

In family proceedings, such behaviours may understandably attract scrutiny. Family courts are regularly required to assess credibility, parental capacity and a person’s ability to engage with support services. Findings on these issues can carry significant weight when determining a child’s future.

But what if some of those behaviours are also suggestive of undiagnosed ADHD?
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental disorder marked by persistent symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. There are three main classifications of ADHD, although individuals often have a combination: inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity.

Last year, the Family Justice Council (FJC) published landmark guidance on neurodiversity within the family justice system. Sir Andrew McFarlane observed that failures to recognise and accommodate neurodivergence can prevent parties, witnesses and children from participating effectively in proceedings. The guidance reflects an important shift away from expecting individuals to conform to neurotypical standards and towards ensuring meaningful access to justice.

The guidance is undoubtedly a significant step forward. However, one question remains: is ADHD being sufficiently represented, or is it at risk of disappearing under the general concept of neurodiversity?

This question matters because family courts do not simply form conclusions based off diagnoses, but also conduct. Yet ADHD, particularly when undiagnosed, can profoundly impact behaviours leading to Court involvement.

ADHD in women and girls

ADHD still produces overgeneralised and harmful stereotypes, such as a disruptive young boy struggling to sit still in a classroom. The hyperactive and impulsive modes of ADHD are afforded much more attention due to their external and more easily identifiable characteristics. This means that inattentive forms of ADHD, as well as the fact that women and girls are more likely to experience the other two modes internally, are missed or misdiagnosed.

Research overwhelmingly demonstrates that women and girls are more skilled at “masking” their symptoms, leaving them at higher risk of the mental and physical harm which comes with misdiagnosis or non-treatment. From an early age, they learn to suppress impulsive behaviours, compensate for organisational difficulties and imitate the coping strategies of peers. As a result, ADHD may remain hidden despite significant impairment.

The consequences of this are often detrimental. Research has consistently linked untreated ADHD with increased risks of anxiety, depression, substance misuse, accidental injury, relationship instability and educational difficulties. Importantly, these outcomes are not inevitable consequences of ADHD itself. Instead, they often reflect the outcome of a neurodevelopmental disorder remaining unidentified and unsupported for years.

Countless women are not diagnosed until adulthood due to symptoms worsening on account of lack of treatment, with diagnosis often being instrumental for self-esteem and identity. By then, the visible difficulties may be the secondary consequences of years of unsupported ADHD rather than the condition itself, with it dramatically increasing the likelihood of developing other mental health disorders.

Relevance to family justice

Family courts are frequently required to assess individuals whose lives have already been shaped by years of experiences, opportunities and challenges. If a mother appears before the court with a history of unstable relationships, emotional dysregulation, inconsistent engagement with professionals, substance misuse or mental health difficulties, those factors may understandably form part of the evidential picture, but are also proven consequences of mismanaged or untreated ADHD.

An uncomfortable question remains: how many of those difficulties might have been mitigated or avoided entirely had ADHD been recognised earlier? This question is fundamental because family proceedings often involve assessments of credibility.

Judges routinely evaluate the reliability of evidence, engagement with professionals and behavioural presentation. These are entirely legitimate and necessary exercises. However, difficulties can arise where behaviours associated with ADHD are interpreted without sufficient neurodevelopmental context.

A parent with ADHD may struggle to recall dates accurately, provide information in a clear chronological sequence or maintain consistency when recounting complex events across multiple interviews and hearings. Working memory difficulties, emotional overwhelm and stress can all affect how information is communicated. Executive dysfunction may manifest as lateness, missed appointments, disorganisation or inconsistent engagement with support services. Impulsivity may influence relationships, finances and decision-making. Emotional dysregulation may present as instability or disproportionate reactions during stressful interactions.

Viewed without context, these behaviours may appear determinative of an individual’s capacity. They may be interpreted as evidence of unreliability, poor insight or an inability to engage constructively with professionals. Yet in another setting, many would simply be recognised as symptoms of a neurodevelopmental condition.

The issue is not that courts should disregard concerning behaviour, nor that ADHD should excuse harmful conduct. Rather, it is whether behavioural presentation is being properly understood before conclusions are drawn from it.

That distinction matters because credibility findings rarely exist in isolation. They often influence wider assessments of parental capacity, risk, engagement and ultimately welfare outcomes. If behaviour associated with undiagnosed ADHD is misunderstood, there is a risk that assessments of these issues become less accurate.

Recognition in the courtroom

The importance of recognising ADHD extends beyond questions of credibility and participation. It also raises a more fundamental issue: what is the court actually assessing?

In other words, there is a risk that professionals may find themselves assessing the consequences of untreated ADHD rather than the person’s underlying parenting capacity with appropriate support in place. This issue may be particularly important when children and young people come before the court.

ADHD in girls remains significantly under-recognised. Because many girls do not display the disruptive behaviours traditionally associated with ADHD, difficulties may instead present through emotional dysregulation, school attendance problems, anxiety, low self-esteem, family conflict or risk-taking behaviour. A girl who achieves good grades and causes little disruption in school may nevertheless be struggling profoundly elsewhere.

If ADHD is missed, interventions may focus solely on managing symptoms rather than addressing their underlying cause. Emotional difficulties may be treated in isolation and family conflict may be viewed exclusively as a behavioural issue. Educational difficulties may be attributed to a lack of motivation. The opportunity for earlier intervention may be lost.

Recognition therefore has significance beyond diagnosis alone.

ADHD is a highly treatable neurodevelopmental condition for many individuals, with substantial evidence supporting both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Treatment often produces significant improvements in executive functioning, emotional regulation, educational outcomes and overall quality of life.

Given that appropriate treatment and support can significantly improve functioning and stability for many individuals with ADHD, an important question arises for family justice. If ADHD is identified during proceedings, should that diagnosis simply be noted, or should it influence the support offered to the individual, or even the court’s assessment of future outcomes?

In some cases, the answer may have practical implications. Appropriate treatment, specialist support and tailored interventions may improve a parent’s ability to engage with professionals, comply with plans and meet the demands of everyday parenting.

Equally, where a child is involved, recognition of ADHD may affect the support provided by schools, healthcare professionals and local authorities. As discussed, identifying ADHD early can have a substantial impact on the child’s future.

This is not to suggest that a diagnosis should determine the outcome of proceedings. Family courts must continue to make evidence-based welfare decisions centred upon the child’s best interests. However, where ADHD is present, courts may need to consider not only the difficulties currently being observed, but also the extent to which they are capable of improvement with appropriate support and intervention.

The Family Justice Council identifies two dangers arising from failures to recognise neurodivergence: flawed assessments and barriers to participation. Both concerns are highly relevant in the context of ADHD.

The guidance also observes that neurodivergent adults and children may not themselves possess a full understanding of how neurodivergence affects their functioning. This is particularly important when considering ADHD in women and girls, many of whom may have spent years masking symptoms, receiving alternative diagnoses or never receiving an explanation for the difficulties they experience.

The courts have already recognised the dangers of making assumptions about neurodivergent parents. In D and E (Parent with Autism) [2020] EWFC B18, the court warned against professionals relying upon generalisations associated with a diagnosis rather than assessing the strengths and needs of the individual parent before them. Although that case concerned Autism Spectrum Disorder, the underlying principle that assumptions should never replace individualised assessments remains essential.

Family justice recognises that the standard is not perfect parenting but “good enough” parenting. The question should not simply be whether difficulties exist, but whether appropriate support may enable them to be understood and ultimately overcome.

Conclusion

The Family Justice Council has already begun an important conversation about neurodiversity within family justice. The next step is ensuring that different forms of neurodivergence and their unique demands are addressed separately.

As understanding of ADHD continues to evolve, particularly in relation to women and girls, family courts may increasingly be required to ask not only what behaviour is being observed, but why it is occurring. If family justice is serious about accurate assessments of future risk, effective participation and evidence-based decision-making, that question may prove just as important as the behaviour itself.

In the words of Lady Justice Hallett, “Advocates must adapt to the witness, not the other way around.” Otherwise, there is a risk that courts and professionals may find themselves assessing the consequences of years of unmet neurodevelopmental need rather than an individual’s potential parental capacity if appropriate support is acquired.

Alex Delaney recently graduated from the PGDL at the University of Law’s Newcastle campus, where she will also be studying the BPC. She is an aspiring family law barrister and is interested in the the crossover between the Family court and the Court of Protection, neurodiversity in proceedings and matrimonial finance.