Mr J complains that he was not involved in the creation and narrative of the storyboard
15. To put our decision into context, it may help if we explain more about the role of the Cafcass FCA.
16. Cafcass FCA’s provide advice to the family courts about the welfare of children and what is in their best interests. Usually, they do this from an independent standpoint, meaning the views they express in their reports, or in evidence to the court, are their professional opinion and not given on behalf of any of the parties involved.
17. In some cases, however, the court may feel the child needs to be attached to the proceedings, meaning that it intends to give weight to the child’s views as well as their parents. In such cases, the court will appoint children’s Guardian whose role it is to represent the child or children directly. In Mr J’s family court case a Cafcass FCA was appointed as the children’s Guardian to represent the children’s views, and a solicitor was instructed so the children’s legal interests could be protected in court.
18. Following the judge’s dismissal of Mr J’s application, he told the court he did not wish to re-establish face to face contact with his children, and the court barred any further applications being made without leave of the court for a period of three years in accordance with Section 91 (14) of the Children Act (1989).
19. A Section 91(14) order allows the family courts to bar individuals from making further specified applications in circumstances such as where the court is satisfied that the making of a further application would put the child concerned, or another individual, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse.
20. The court order shows that Mr J was also asked by the court to agree not to, nor encourage anybody to, make complaints to the Local Authority or social services about the children’s mother. He refused to agree to this, and a Non- Molestation Order was made in similar terms.
21. The Section 91(14) order records that Mr J then told the Guardian, in the presence of the children’s solicitor and a trainee solicitor, that he intended to take the mother to Crown Court alleging defamation of character.
22. Shortly after the conclusion of the case, the Guardian created a storyboard in order to help the children understand why they had been involved with the family courts, what would happen going forward, and how they would be kept safe and secure in the future.
23. Mr J had been involved in initial discussions about the content of the storyboard prior to the hearing, however, the Guardian did not include him in the final version completed after the proceedings had been finalised.
24. We asked Cafcass for the reasons for this and they told us they felt it would have been counterproductive to have sought Mr J’s agreement with the final version of the storyboard as he had continued to hold a narrative that had been dismissed by the court. Cafcass said the Guardian had discussed the storyboard with their manager, with the children’s mother, and with the children’s solicitor, and all were in agreement that the contents could be easily understood and accepted and were appropriate to be shared.
25. We have looked at the guidance and it says a parent, or parents are most likely to be the key adult to provide the pictures and narrative and even if they are not able to directly share it, they must be involved in agreeing the words and picture story for their child or children. The guidance does not specify whether this applies to both parents or just the parent the child lives with. For this reason, the FCA was able to use their professional judgement on who best to involve in order to ensure the information was appropriate and could be understood.
26. In line with Cafcass storyboard guidance, the storyboard itself consisted of six frames of simple drawings and a short, factual description beneath each picture. We understand that Mr J was keen for his children to know they could contact him by telephone. Whilst space was short on the storyboard, we can see that he had the opportunity to let the children know this himself in their cards when delivering Christmas presents shortly after the storyboard was created.
27. The FCA did agree the content of the storyboard with the children’s mother, and with their solicitor, and there was nothing factually incorrect in them saying an order had been created to protect mum. Mr J also had the opportunity to let his children know the court had said they could contact him by telephone. For these reasons, the Cafcass approach appears proportionate and reasonable to the situation, and in line with its guidance and our principles. We have seen nothing to suggest the FCA would have agreed with Mr J’s preferred version of events, and for this reason we have found nothing went wrong in their decision not to obtain agreement with Mr J for the final version.
28. We understand this is not the outcome Mr J would have been looking for when bringing his complaint to us, however, we hope we have fully explained how we have considered his complaint and the reasons for our decision. We wish him all the best for the future.