In a sign that the family courts are increasingly willing to recognise the role to be played by alternative means of dispute resolution, in Re AI and MT [2013] EWHC 100 (Fam) Baker J: (1) acceded to a request from the parties to stay matrimonial proceedings to allow for a non-binding arbitration to be conducted by a senior rabbi of the New York Beth Din, in recognition of the parties’ devout religious beliefs and their wish to resolve the dispute through the rabbinical court; and (2) endorsed the outcome of that process concerning both children and financial arrangements. The case is of some importance because it was the first time in which such a step had been taken by the Family Division; it is also of significance by way of analogy in CoP proceedings because, in both, the Court’s obligation to have regard to the welfare of the child/the best interests of the adult is an obligation which cannot be ousted by agreement. The Court can – and in very many cases will – endorse an agreed consent order, but must be satisfied that the outcome is one that accords with the welfare of the child/best interests of the adult. This case therefore provides strong support by way of analogy for the use of appropriate ADR in CoP proceedings as well as in proceedings involving children. We should note in this regard that we hope to be bringing you a note on mediation/ADR in the Court of Protection with our next issue, which will no doubt explore this case in further detail.