Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

3. Mr R complains about the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) and the actions of a Family Court Advisor (FCA) in relation to court proceedings between June 2023 and June 2024.

4. Mr R says the FCA produced a biased Section 7 report, failed to carry out proper checks and consider evidence and inappropriately recommended he attend parenting classes.

5. Mr R also complains about Cafcass’ complaint handling. He says Cafcass failed to respond to his concerns and were unable to answer questions due to staff leaving and poor record keeping.

6. Mr R says the section 7 report led to a judge requesting a further hearing resulting in additional legal costs. This affected him financially and he is now in debt. He says the contents of the report caused him to suffer a mental breakdown which led to the loss of his job. Mr R says the additional hearing delayed proceedings and reduced access to his son until the further hearing took place.

7. By bringing his complaint to us Mr R seeks financial reimbursement for loss of earnings and legal fees.

15. Cafcass is the independent public body who work to promote the welfare of children involved in family court proceedings in England. Its primary role is to advise the family courts about what arrangements are in the best interests of the child.

16. Cafcass officers, known as FCAs, are typically qualified social workers with experience in child protection. They do not represent either parent but instead act in the interests of the child, independent of all other parties. FCA’s provide reports and recommendations to help the court make informed decisions about matters such as contact and residence.

17. The Court will usually direct Cafcass to complete a report and has expectations of what it should include. Based on their professional judgement FCA’s produce a Section 7 report. This is a detailed assessment aimed at evaluating the safety and well-being of a child within their family or living environment and to promote the welfare of the child.

18. Cafcass’ view can be examined and 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 is for the court to decide what weight, if any, to place on a challenge. Further, if the court decides Cafcass has provided insufficient information for it to make a judgement it can ask Cafcass to carry out additional work on the case.

Professional conduct of FCA and biased Section 7 Report

21. Mr R complains about how the FCA completed the Section 7 report. He says the FCA failed to carry out a fair, balanced and impartial investigation. He says the FCA did not verify information provided by his former partner and the FCA worked together against him, resulting in a biased report.

22. Mr R has concerns about the FCA attempting to meet with his son on several occasions following an initial meeting. He also says the FCA inappropriately recommended he attend a perpetrator course and parenting classes.

23. In October 2024 Cafcass replied to Mr R and explained 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.

24. Mr R told us when the report was produced, he was shocked at the allegations made. He says because of the report a further court hearing was needed meaning the limited access rights he had to his son remained in place. Furthermore, he says the report caused him to have a nervous breakdown and lose his job.

25. We can see the FCA completed the Section 7 report in June 2023, with Mr R’s former partner not wishing to pursue a fact finding but with Mr R wanting to. We can further see the Section 7 report did not recommend a finding of fact but did recommend Mr R undertake perpetrator work and further parenting courses.

26. The court subsequently determined the allegations made by Mr R’s former partner meant the case was allocated to a District Judge. This resulted in a Finding of Fact hearing taking place 11 months later.

27. At the hearing Mr R had the opportunity to address his concerns in court, where a decision could have been made which may (or may not) have been in his favour.

28. The hearing concluded with contact arrangements between Mr R and his son confirmed. The courts also recommend Mr R undertake parenting work.

29. In Cafcass cases, the report provided by an FCA is one of a number of pieces of evidence that a judge will consider in court. Given the nature of Section 7 reports, the opinion put forward by the FCA may appear to favour one party’s view over another. The courts are the most appropriate place to challenge the FCA’s views and recommendations. We cannot substitute our own judgement for that of the courts.

30. As the matters Mr R complains about were concluded in the court system, we will not be taking further action on these points. We recognise the concerns Mr R had regarding the FCA and Section 7 report. We are pleased Mr R’s contact with the courts ended with him gaining access to his son.

Complaint Handling

31. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have not found any indication this issue had a negative impact on Mr R.

32. In February 2024, Mr R complained to Cafcass about the Section 7 report and the FCA. Cafcass informed Mr R his concerns were not being considered under Cafcass’ complaints policy. He was further told his concerns would be sent to a relevant manager who would consider if any action was needed.

33. In March 2024, Mr R spoke with a Cafcass Service Manager about his complaint. He was later advised this was the start of Cafcass’ internal process, known as an Everyday conversation. Over the next seven weeks Mr R contacted the Service Manager on two occasions to request an update.

34. On 28 August 2024, Mr R submitted a former complaint to Cafcass via email. Mr R was contacted by Cafcass the next day to advise his complaint would be allocated to a team member within eight weeks. he was then contacted by a Complaints Manager on 26 September 2024 to confirm his concerns. Cafcass sent a final response on 23 October 2024.

35. The final response addressed Mr R’s concerns about the FCA and Section 7 report. It also reproduced an email Cafcass said Mr R had been sent on 24 April 2024. This email was not included in the complaint file we requested from Cafcass, nor was it included in evidence submitted by Mr R.

36. The email should have been sent to Mr R as a final response to the matters he raised in February and March 2024. The email advised Mr R of how to raise concerns about the Section 7 Report within the court proceedings. While Cafcass failed to email this information to Mr R in April 2024 it had previously advised on this point in its email of 14 February 2024.

37. We have discussed this email with Cafcass and it has advised they are unable to evidence the email was sent. It has advised it will contact Mr R to apologise for not sending the response in April 2024.

38. We acknowledge the potential impact on Mr R by not receiving the email in April 2024. If the email from Cafcass in February 2024 had not been sent Mr R may not have been aware of the need to raise concerns about the Section 7 report during court hearings. However, as Mr R was made aware of the process in February 2024 we view the email not being sent in April 2024 as a shortcoming rather than a failing.

39. 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.

40. When considering what actions the organisation should take we refer to our severity of injustice scale. This allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service.

41. 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 incident 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.

42. On this basis, and with Cafcass confirming they will send a letter of apology to Mr R we believe there is no indication of an unremedied injustice regarding this part of Mr R’s complaint. We are satisfied Cafcass has done enough to remedy the situation and would not expect it to do any more.

43. We understand this is not the outcome Mr R 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 R’s complaint about the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). We are sorry to hear about the events Mr R has complained about and appreciate his experience with the organisation has caused emotional and financial distress. While we sympathise with Mr R’s position in this complaint, we have seen Cafcass have done enough to address the matters within its remit.

2. For that reason, although we recognise how difficult the situation has been for Mr R we have decided to take no further action on his complaint. We understand our decision will be disappointing. We will explain the reasons below in more detail.