3. Ms O complains that Cafcass twice tried to withdraw from her case.
4. This caused a delay in the case, and matters were still ongoing which could have been resolved in November 2024.
5. Ms O would like staff to receive training so that the issues she faced do not happen again. She also seeks compensation for travel expenses.
6. Cafcass had initially been directed to write a Section 7 report by the Court on 10 April 2024. The report was due to be heard in court on 17 July. Ms O explained that Cafcass did not appoint a Family Court Adviser (FCA) until May, and an appointment was scheduled for 17 July with the FCA.
7. Ms O tells us that the FCA asked for an extension for the Section 7 report and this was granted with a new court hearing date for the 5 August. Ms O explains on 7 August Cafcass requested a further extension for the court order and a hearing was scheduled for 20 November.
8. Ms O said that on 29 August Cafcass sent a letter to Court advising that it should be removed from the case as social services were involved. However, this was denied by the court on 1 October. On the same day, Ms O said that Cafcass had appointed a new FCA to manage her case. Ms O explains that she had difficulty contacting the FCA.
9. On 9 October, Cafcass submitted a Section 16A risk assessment to court, with a Section 37 recommendation.
10. At the Court hearing on 20 November a judge ordered the local authority to file a new Section 7 report and Cafcass’ role in the case ended.
Ms O complains that Cafcass twice tried to withdraw from her case.
12. 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.
13. We made enquiries with Cafcass to ask if it had tried to withdraw from Ms O’s case. Cafcass confirmed it wrote to court on 29 August 2024, as the local authority were involved with the family and that an addendum Section 7 report should be prepared by the local authority. Cafcass also explained it was concerned about the safety of the living arrangements for one of the children in Ms O’s case and made two referrals to the local authority in this respect.
14. On 1 October, the court issued an order which stated that Cafcass needed to continue with the case, and it would not be considered by the local authority.
15. On 9 October Cafcass filed a Section 16A risk assessment with a recommended Section 37 order when it had identified a potential risk to children due to a family member living with Ms O. A hearing was held on 14 October and Ms O tells us that the presiding judge ordered Cafcass to continue with the case.
16. As the FCA (acting on behalf of Cafcass) made recommendations to court for the local authority to take over the case and a Section 16A risk assessment, we cannot review or question the appropriateness of that recommendation, as it was for the court to consider.
17. Additionally, Cafcass recommended a Section 37 assessment which was declined by the Judge at a hearing on 15 October and a further assessment was ordered from the Local Authority alongside an update from Cafcass for a future hearing, which it said it complied with.
18. We also understand a judge ordered the local authority to file a Section 7 report at the 20 November hearing. For similar reasons, we cannot comment on or review the judge’s order, as that was a matter for the court.
19. We have found that Cafcass explained to Ms O why it had recommended the Section 37 in its final complaint response of 5 December. It said that it cannot comment on any referrals made to for the local authority to be involved as theses are matters for the court to address.
20. Cafcass further explained that when the initial FCA involved in Ms O’s case became absent from work, the replacement FCA noted the local authority were involved. The FCA then wrote to court requesting that the local authority complete an addendum report.
21. Cafcass also responded to Ms O’s concerns that the requests for the local authority to be involved was not appropriate. Cafcass identified that it could not comment on this via its complaint’s process as the purpose of the complaints policy is to look at the conduct of Cafcass’ staff.
22. Cafcass’ complaint response of 5 December also stated it was sorry to read that Ms O felt Cafcass were trying to remove itself form her case. Cafcass said it would try to conclude its involvement with families as soon as possible as it recognised that its involvement should be time limited. Cafcass explained that the roles of local authority and its social workers were different to Cafcass’ social workers.
23. Cafcass said there were occasions when the local authority are best placed to offer the advice to the court and felt this was an appropriate way forward in Ms O’s case. Cafcass noted Ms O’s concerns about the action it had taken. Overall, it felt it had focused on the best interests of Ms O’s family.
24. While we cannot comment on whether the recommendations were appropriate, we can see that Cafcass clearly set out its rationale to the court and to Ms O and explained why there were instances when it felt it should not be involved in her case. This is consistent with our Principles of Good Administration – being open and accountable, which state that public bodies should be open and truthful when explaining their decisions and actions, and provide reasons for their decisions.
25. We recognise this is not the outcome Ms O was hoping for when she asked us to investigate her complaint. We appreciate the time and effort she took to explain her experience and the impact it had on her. We hope our decision clearly explains our position and reassures her that we have given careful consideration to her concerns.
1. We have carefully considered Ms O’s complaint about Cafcass. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.
2. We understand that Ms O felt Cafcass was trying to remove itself from her case when it recommended a Section 37 order in court. We recognise how frustrating and unsettling this must have been for her while already dealing with ongoing court proceedings.