Cafcass Report
16. Mr X states the recommendation ‘was based solely on my ex-partner's statement, which contained numerous false allegations’. We also note that Mr X stated after submitting his statement (responded to by the other party) he was not given the opportunity to dispute the allegations made; and claimed the other party’s statement contained unaddressed inaccuracies which the FCA accepted, demonstrating bias.
17. As we have explained, concerns about the report are best addressed in court.
18. If Mr X felt the statement was inaccurate, evidence was not considered and the FCA had been biased in the report, this needed to be raised as part of the proceedings. We acknowledge Mr X said he would not have the funds to cover his children’s travel if he challenged the recommendation. However, this remains the appropriate way and place to dispute it.
Failure to properly investigate concerns raised about the FCA
19. Mr X said his son found the FCA ‘intimidating’ and felt uncomfortable during their interaction, where she was ‘short’ with him.
20. The evidence indicates, that Cafcass consulted the FCA for their account of the meeting, as part of its investigation. We note that the FCA disagreed with the assertion and stated, ‘it was a polite and respectful conversation that we enjoyed’. The FCA ‘believed’ that if Mr X’s son was upset by their interaction, ‘he would have notified his father’ (the other party, he resides with).
21. We note that both accounts differ. We acknowledge family court proceedings can be distressing in an already emotive time for most families. We also understand that people interpret things differently, to others.
22. In the absence of independent evidence to support Mr X’s son’s recollection of the meeting, we do not consider we can reach a view on this part of Mr X’s complaint.
23. Mr X stated that during a video call with the FCA, she used the word ‘porkies’ implying that his son might be lying (about the allegation concerning being tickled). We fully understand that this would have been upsetting to hear.
24. In Cafcass’ response we note the FCA stated she did not use the word ‘porkies’ or insinuate that B (Mr X’s son) was ‘lying’.
25. Mr X says he has a recording that proves otherwise. However, he has admitted that the recording was made covertly, for his personal use.
26. Under our Principles of Good Complaint Handling – acting fairly and proportionately – we expect organisations to investigate thoroughly and base their decisions on the available facts and evidence. It is not clear whether Mr X made this recording available to Cafcass so it is not something we could have expected it to consider as part of its investigation. For that reason, we cannot comment on this further.
27. If Mr X believes the recording highlights unprofessional behaviour, he may wish to submit this to Cafcass now. However, it will be for Cafcass to take a view on whether to consider it, given how it was obtained and the length of time that has passed since these events.
Demonstrating bias
28. In Mr X’s view the FCA demonstrated ‘bias’ against him by meeting with the other party and his children (separately) before his own meeting took place (on 10 May). Mr X stated that during his meeting, with the FCA, they ‘attempted to gain sympathy’ for his ex-partner, which, in his view demonstrates bias.
29. Cafcass confirmed that there is ‘no prescribed order of when interviews should take place’.
30. The FCA stated ‘I generally prefer to speak to both parents first and then the children but in this instance, my diary dictated otherwise’. The FCA added they had the ‘opportunity’ to see the children, before speaking to Mr X, which they took.
31. We have considered what both Cafcass and Mr X told us in the light of Cafcass’ published policy on working with families.
32. As we have said, Cafcass’ role is to undertake an assessment of the child’s welfare and best interests and to provide a report, which includes recommendations as to the child’s best interests. The Cafcass officer should listen carefully to understand experiences and perspectives of the parties to the application, and, where appropriate, seek the views and perspectives of others who know the child and their parents. However, the Cafcass officer is required to form their own independent professional assessment and share the reasons for their recommendations.
33. Cafcass provide a range of guides and tools for use by its staff when assessing a child’s needs and best interests. These are underpinned by Cafcass’s ‘Together with children and families’ document which is its relationship-based practice framework. The framework is intended to help Cafcass staff to do their best work with children and families. Although it provides a framework for practice. It is not intended as an instruction manual or to undermine the professional independence of the Cafcass officer in individual proceedings. While the use of some resources and aids is required by policy, the framework does not direct which practice aid to use in what circumstances. Professional discretion is required to select the most appropriate resource/aid. Similarly, although Cafcass officers are required to seek the views of the child and the parents, there is no set order in which interviews must be conducted.
34. We acknowledge that Mr X believes Cafcass has demonstrated bias by talking to his ex-partner and his children before him. However, we do not agree. Whilst Cafcass should speak to both parents and the child, it is not explicitly stated in the policy, in which order these interviews should take place.
35. That is not to say we dismiss Mr X’s feelings. We recognise that, in general, Cafcass’s presence in a case becomes necessary because of a disagreement between two parties over what is in the best interest of their child. This is a difficult situation for everyone involved. Cafcass are required to make recommendations and invariably, given the nature of the disagreement, this is likely to appear more aligned to one party’s view than the other. Although this is not evidence of bias it is still likely to cause upset. Similarly, the order in which Cafcass choose to conduct its interviews may cause upset but is also not evidence of bias.
36. We have noted Mr X’s contention that the FCA told his children what the recommendations were likely to be before he’d had a chance to express his views. However, Cafcass said this did not happen. It explained that the FCA discussed the ‘pros and cons of the different plans’ with the children, and listened to their ‘wishes and feelings’ but did not confirm the recommendation.
37. Cafcass added that the FCA did speak to Mr X about the observations made by the other party, in their statements, in order to ‘gain a balanced view on Mr X’s version of these issues.’
38. As we have explained, Cafcass’s role is to obtain a balanced picture of the family circumstances. We are satisfied that Cafcass has acted in line with this.
Allegation not investigated
39. Mr X told us that a sexual abuse allegation he reported to the FCA ‘was not appropriately investigated’ at the time. We acknowledge this caused Mr X grave concern. We understand in Mr X’s view, it was ‘unacceptable’ for the FCA to ‘disregard the concern’ without conducting an investigation.
40. We should explain that local authorities (councils etc) have overall responsibility for safeguarding children in their area. However, other organisations are expected to support local authorities in their efforts. This includes, where appropriate, alerting the local authority that a safeguarding concern may have arisen. It would then by for the local authority to consider and, where appropriate, investigate that concern.
41. Cafcass publish a Child safeguarding policy which sets out how FCA’s should respond when concerns about a child’s safety are raised. It says when an FCA becomes concerned about the welfare of a child, they should consider, in conjunction with their manager, whether to make a referral to the local authority.
42. As part of its investigation, Cafcass spoke to the FCA about the concern. The FCA confirmed that the email it received from Mr X said, ‘I don’t want to unnecessarily escalate something that could be innocent’.
43. The FCA stated that she ‘did not want to infer that something innocent was sinister’ so she decided to wait and see if the children would raise any concerns during her ‘direct work’ with them, and confirmed that they did not.
44. Cafcass acknowledged that the FCA ‘should have discussed the content with her manager with a view to making a referral to the Local Authority’ and apologised for not doing so initially, in line with its Safeguarding Policy.
45. On receipt of Mr X’s complaint, the Service Manager discussed the concern with the FCA, and a referral was made to the Local Authority.
46. It is important to note that, once a referral is made, it is for the Local Authority to determine what action, if any, to take. After reviewing the information submitted by Cafcass, the Local Authority decided to take no further action.
47. The final order made by consent on 24 June 2024, also confirmed that there were no concerns. ‘There are no safeguarding concerns in respect of the children being in the care of either party.’
48. Under our Principles of Good Administration – Putting things right, in situations like this, we would expect the organisation concerned to acknowledge and apologise for its mistake. We would also expect the organisation to take steps to put matters right.
49. When considering this, we refer to our severity of injustice scale which allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service.
50. Our scale contains six different levels of injustice that a complaint could fall into, which increase in severity.
51. The evidence shows that Cafcass apologised for its mistake and a referral was made, following receipt of Mr X’s complaint. We would not have expected Cafcass to have done more in regard to this part of the complaint.
52. A case will generally be level one if we consider the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice such as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience. This would typically arise from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact. We will usually consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for these cases.
53. In summary, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. For the reasons we have explained, we found no indications of bias in the way Cafcass formulated its recommendations or in its handling of Mr X’s complaint. Although we accept that Cafcass made an error in not immediately raising safeguarding concerns with the local authority, we cannot see this had a significant impact. We are also satisfied that in acknowledging, and apologising for this error, Cafcass took appropriate action to put matters right.
54. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr X was looking for from his complaint and we acknowledge, that this has been a difficult and stressful time for him. We hope we have explained why we have come to our decision. We thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention and wish him well for the future.