Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

4. Dr E complains about the service he received from Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). He complains that:

• The court advisor provided advice to the other party involved in the case, but not to him, rather than remaining impartial • The court advisor lied in court

5. Dr E told us that the court advisor’s actions negatively influenced the court’s decision against him and led to him being separated from his child. He explained that this has also led to his child’s mother being allowed to continue with dysfunctional parenting. This has damaged his relationship with his child.

6. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Dr E is seeking for us to recommend that Cafcass provide him with an apology and dismiss the court advisor from its service.

7. He also believes it would be appropriate for Cafcass to provide compensation of £6,000 for the distress caused and its impact on his family.

8. Dr E was involved in a family court case regarding his son. He explained that rather than remaining impartial, the court advisor from Cafcass provided advice to the other party involved in the case and reinforced their version of events in court. He also told us that the court advisor lied in court and later admitted to these actions in court. However, Dr E says Cafcass has failed to find fault or take any action.

Court Advisor’s conduct during the investigation

10. Dr E complains that the Court Advisor (CA) advised the other side on her legal case but provided no such advice to him. He complains that she did this without warrant and displayed bias towards the other party.

11. 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.

12. Cafcass’ role is largely to offer a view, based on its professional judgement, on what it feels to be in the best interests of the child/children. Given the nature of Cafcass’ work, that opinion will often appear to favour one party’s view over another. That is not evidence of bias. Nor is it evidence of maladministration.

13. Cafcass usually expresses its view in the form of a report which includes, but is not limited to, any enquiries it has made or any information it has gathered. It is not for us to determine what Cafcass enquiries it should make or what information it should include in, or omit from, its reports. These are matters for Cafcass’ discretion. Similarly, it is not for us to tell Cafcass how its officers should investigate a case, and how they should decide what evidence warrants inclusion, or what advice should be given to either party.

14. Cafcass’ view can be examined, and, where necessary, challenged during the court process. The same is true for any concerns which arise over the information Cafcass has, or has not, chosen to include in its report. It will be for the court to decide what weight, if any, to place on that challenge. Further, if the court decides that Cafcass has provided insufficient information for it to make a judgement it can ask Cafcass to carry out additional work on the case. Again, this is not evidence of maladministration.

15. There is a clear and established process for challenging a Cafcass view. We do not see it us our role to interfere with that process.

16. Essentially, we look at administrative failings (when not under the judge’s remit) and complaint handling. Broadly, this means the practical steps an organisation takes to carry out its duties, such as handling correspondence, processing complaints, maintaining records, meeting deadlines, and following internal procedures. These are separate from professional judgments (like a Cafcass Officer or Social Worker’s assessment) or decisions made under the authority of a judge, which we cannot look at.

Court Advisor’s conduct in court

17. Dr E complains that the CA lied in court about her knowledge that the school and his child’s mother had agreed that his son could be trusted when accusing others of shouting or hitting, due to his special needs and sensory over-sensitivity.

18. He told us that the CA spoke to him once, when he told her of his son's prior accusation against his teachers, and of the school's and his mother's denial of his credibility.

19. Dr E explained that he copied to her the school's letter of investigation, in which the school and his child’s mother concluded that he is not a credible witness. He told us he copied to the court and to his child’s mother a letter from the school with a bundle of evidence for the hearing.

20. When the hearing took place, Dr E explained that when he testified to these facts, the judge asked the CA to confirm, but she denied any knowledge of this. Similarly, Dr E explained that the CA told Cafcass that she couldn't remember any evidence. Dr E states that the CA is either dishonest or incompetent, but that Cafcass failed to find any fault in her actions.

21. If the CA has lied in court, this would be a criminal offence. This is not something that it is within PHSO’s remit to pursue, and Dr E would need to make a complaint to the court.

22. Dr E has referred to the CA presenting false evidence to the court and of being biased. This is a serious matter and something a court has power to take a view on. If someone believes that Cafcass has willfully and deliberately misled a court by providing false information, they may wish to seek independent legal advice on how best to raise this concern with the court. This is not something PHSO can help with. However, if the court does take a view that Cafcass has acted unlawfully, we may later be able to consider the matter against Cafcass’ administrative responsibilities.

Summary

23. Having reviewed all the relevant evidence, we have taken the decision that there is nothing to indicate a need to proceed to the second and final stage of our complaints process.

24. We were sorry to learn of the circumstances which led to Dr E’s approach to our office. We realise that the outcome of his approach is unlikely to be the one he was hoping for. We also recognise his/ likely disappointment at this and hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision.

1. We have carefully considered Dr E’s complaint about Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). We would like to thank Dr E for bringing these matters to our attention and recognise that this has been a difficult process.

2. Having reviewed the evidence, for each of the two points raised we found no indication that anything went wrong.

3. Therefore, we will not progress with a more detailed investigation of the complaint.