Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

3. Mr S was involved in a child contact case and complained about a Section 7 report produced in December 2022, alleging the author was biased. At a family court hearing in July 2024, Mr S says another Cafcass officer acknowledged his concerns and agreed a new report should be written. Mr S subsequently asked for a different Family Court Adviser (FCA) to prepare it, but Cafcass kept the same author. Mr S also complains about Cafcass’s handling of his complaint.

4. Mr S explains Cafcass’ biased and incomplete reporting caused him ongoing distress, anxiety, financial loss, and prolonged limited contact with his children. He added that the court later introduced the progression plan Cafcass should have recommended earlier, and he was deeply concerned by its failure to act impartially or meet required standards.

5. Mr S is seeking an explanation and apology for Cafcass’ lack of impartiality, replacement of the FCA with a more experienced officer, and compensation for increased contact costs and related applications.

6. Mr S’ complaint raises concerns about the handling of a Section 7 report by Cafcass, authored by an FCA and overseen by a manager.

7. Mr S explains he was concerned that the FCA recommended he complete a domestic abuse course in the Section 7 report produced in December 2022. He says this was not proven in court and there was no basis for the recommendation. Mr S believes this resulted in him being unfairly labelled as an abuser, causing emotional distress, anxiety, and financial impact, including delays in proceedings and increased legal costs. He says this was contrary to Cafcass’ Practice Quality Standard 1a, which sets out the principles underpinning Cafcass practice.

8. Mr S explains that court-ordered contact of nine hours every other weekend was consistently limited by the children’s mother to two to three hours due to scheduling conflicts, which he believes the FCA failed to identify as parental alienation. He says the absence of a contact progression plan delayed resolution for almost two years and was only addressed by the court at a final hearing in July 2024.

9. Mr S says the Section 7 report did not include his concerns or adequately consider safeguarding undertakings regarding physical chastisement. He believes allegations made by the mother were accepted without sufficient scrutiny, including references to therapy and GP records which he says did not evidence abuse.

10. Mr S states the report did not identify or assess early indicators of parental alienation, nor consider future risks, likelihood of recurrence, or impact on the children, which he believes was contrary to Cafcass’ Practice Quality Standard 4 relating to the assessment of risk and time spent with each parent.

11. Mr S says that the FCA’s manager, as a more experienced practitioner, acknowledged shortcomings in the Section 7 report during court proceedings in July 2024, but nevertheless allocated the same FCA to complete an addendum report. He believes this demonstrated a lack of impartiality and insufficient consideration of the children’s best interests. Mr S also says the FCA did not adequately consider whether the children’s views may have been influenced by the resident parent.

12. Mr S complained to Cafcass in early October 2024, and Cafcass sent its response at the end of that month.

13. Cafcass explained that the FCA’s manager did not accept that the Section 7 report was flawed. It said her evidence in court related to developments in the understanding and terminology of domestic abuse and was not an acceptance that the report’s findings or recommendations were unsuitable.

14. Cafcass said the FCA would remain involved in the case if the court required further work. Cafcass also explained that its complaints team could not investigate:

• The content of reports or recommendations to the court, which are matters for the court to consider.

• Judicial decisions or court orders, which would require legal advice to challenge.

• Complaints about other professionals involved in the case, including judges, solicitors, local authority social workers, or court-appointed experts.

15. Cafcass concluded that appropriate guidance had been provided and that there was no further action it could take.

Mr S was involved in a child contact case and complained about a Section 7 report produced in December 2022, alleging the author was biased. At a family court hearing, Mr S says another Cafcass officer acknowledged his concerns and agreed a new report should be written. Mr S subsequently asked for a different Family Court Adviser (FCA) to prepare it, but Cafcass kept the same author. Mr S also complains about Cafcass’s handling of his complaint.

18. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

19. We understand that Mr S believes the author of the December 2022 Section 7 report was biased, and we recognise how frustrating and upsetting this would have been for him. Complaints about the content of Cafcass assessments or recommendations are matters for the court to consider. We cannot substitute our view for that of the court or reassess professional judgments made within court proceedings. We are therefore unable to reach a view on this aspect of Mr S’s complaint.

20. Mr S also says the same FCA prepared an addendum report following a court hearing in July 2024, despite Cafcass having concerns about the original report. We have seen that Cafcass’s October 2024 complaint response acknowledged issues relating to terminology it used, but did not accept that the FCA’s recommendations were flawed or that the FCA was biased. We have not seen evidence to suggest Cafcass believed the FCA should not continue with the case.

21. Mr S further says that Cafcass admitted concerns about the FCA during a July 2024 court hearing when their manager gave evidence in place of the FCA. Mr S was unable to provide supporting evidence, such as a court transcript, and we have not otherwise seen evidence to support this.

22. We should add that even if we had seen such evidence, we would not, and could not, take a view on whether Cafcass should have removed the FCA from the case. We are not a regulator and have no say in the day to day running of an organisation. Although, under our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable – we expect organisations to take responsibility for the actions of their staff, how they choose to deploy those staff is a matter for the organisation’s operational discretion.

23. Further under Schedule 3, Paragraph 10 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, we are prevented by law from considering complaints in relation to personnel matters. This includes the removal of staff from specific posts or cases.

24. Finally, Mr S complains about the handling of his complaint. We have seen that he complained to Cafcass on 17 October 2024 and received a response on 30 October. Cafcass explained that it could not consider challenges to Section 7 recommendations through its complaints process, as these are matters for the court. This is consistent with section 3.8 of Cafcass’s Complaints Policy and with our expectations of what Cafcass can properly consider. Cafcass also explained that it had seen no reason to appoint a new FCA to the case.

25. Overall, we have found that Cafcass acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, particularly being open and accountable. Cafcass explained the limits of its complaints process and gave clear reasons for why it could not address certain aspects of Mr S’s concerns, which is consistent with this principle.

26. We understand this is not the outcome Mr S was hoping for when he raised his complaint. We thank him for bringing his concerns to us and hope this decision clearly explains how we reached our view.

1. We have carefully considered Mr S’ complaint about Cafcass. We have seen no indication that anything went wrong.

2. Mr S complains about Cafcass’ decision to continue his case with a family court adviser (FCA) who he believes was biased. We recognise that the matters he raises concern his relationship with his children and that this has been distressing for him.