Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

6. Mr B tells us he has concerns about Cafcass’s actions in 2025. He says those actions were not in the best interests of his children. Specifically, Mr B complains: • Cafcass did not call him back to discuss the safeguarding report. Mr B says he was denied the opportunity to discuss it with Cafcass prior to the First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA) • Cafcass disregarded risk factors within the safeguarding report • the court did not recommend interim contact between Mr B and his children. He says this was the result of advice given to his ex-partner by Cafcass’s Family Court Adviser (FCA) • a single FCA had a disproportionate influence upon the court proceedings • there was conflicting information about when Cafcass filed a safeguarding report.

7. Mr B tells us Cafcass’s poor handling resulted in the court deciding that he should not see his children.

8. Mr B wants a further explanation around Cafcass’s actions and for it to acknowledge its mistakes and apologise for them. He also wants Cafcass to improve its service and pay him a financial remedy.

9. The family court asked Cafcass to gather safeguarding information in February 2025 which would assist it in determining the custody arrangements for Mr B’s children.

10. Cafcass filed three safeguarding reports with the court on 14, 21 and 29 May.

13. We will address each element of Mr B’s complaint separately to allow for clarity. Where matters are similar in nature, we will address them collectively.

Cafcass did not call Mr B back to discuss the safeguarding report

14. Mr B said Cafcass’s FCA failed to call him back to discuss the safeguarding report prior to the FHDRA.

15. An FCA is a qualified social worker who the court appoints to assess the child or children concerned and their environment. The FCA provides independent advice and support to the family court.

16. The FHDRA is a key stage in the family court proceedings. Its role is to help the parties to reach an agreement. The FHDRA will set out what further action is needed if the parties fail to reach agreement.

17. Mr B said because Cafcass did not call him back, it denied him the opportunity to discuss the safeguarding report’s findings prior to the FHDRA. He said this is evidence Cafcass failed to involve him at a key stage in the family court proceedings.

18. Cafcass said it returned Mr B’s call and explained its FCAs do not have ongoing contact with the parents throughout the family court proceedings.

19. Cafcass also said it is not the FCA’s role to go through the safeguarding report with Mr B. It said if Mr B had any questions about the advice given in this report, it was open for him to raise this in court.

20. Cafcass do not make decisions in family court cases. Its role is to assist the court. Cafcass usually does this by preparing and submitting documents for the court’s consideration, which includes safeguarding reports. The court will usually direct Cafcass to complete these reports and has expectations of what they should include.

21. Our complaint standards say public bodies should give clear, evidence-based explanations and reasons for their decisions. It also says public bodies should listen to and consider the complainant’s views.

22. Sections 13.1 to 13.8 of Ministry of Justice (MOJ) guidance says an FCA should speak to organisations such as schools, police and local authorities. This is to find out if the parties involved in the case are known to those organisations.

23. If they are known, the FCA will ask the organisations for information they consider relevant. The FCA will then decide, based upon their professional judgment, whether this information should be included in the safeguarding report they submit to the court.

24. If any involved party dispute the information or has any objections to the content or its publication, this is a matter they should raise with the court.

25. This is set out in Cafcass’s safeguarding reports, which state: ‘Significant factual errors (not matters disputed by the parties) in this letter should be referred to the author. Any concerns about other aspects of the letter (for example, the extent of enquiries, the opinions expressed in it, or matters disputed by the parties) must be addressed in court.’

26. We can see this statement was present on all Cafcass’s safeguarding reports issued in May 2025.

27. We recognise Mr B has concerns about the content of Cafcass’s safeguarding reports and feels its FCA should have discussed matters with him prior to the FHDRA.

28. As we have set out above, it was open for Mr B to have raised any concerns he had about the content of Cafcass’s safeguarding reports as part of the family court proceedings.

29. We do not see an indication of maladministration with the explanation supplied by Cafcass during the complaints process. Its explanation appears appropriate and is in line with our complaint standards.

30. We do see an indication of maladministration, however, in Cafcass not promptly returning Mr B’s calls. This does not appear to be in line with our complaint standards.

31. We recognise the lack of a callback at the time would likely have caused Mr B some frustration.

32. We understand Cafcass called Mr B on 19 June 2025 to apologise for not returning his calls and explained FCAs do not have ongoing contact with parents throughout the proceedings. Cafcass confirmed its next contact would be at court.

33. We are pleased Cafcass called Mr B back to apologise and clarify that its FCAs will not have ongoing contact with the parents at various stages of the family court proceedings.

34. We are satisfied with Cafcass’s apology and see it is proportionate to put right the impact of what went wrong.

35. We have therefore decided to take no further action in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

Risk factors

36. Mr B tells us Cafcass’s safeguarding report included some alarming details about a family member who had access to his children. He said he cannot understand why this did not result in the FCA making protective recommendations to the family court.

37. Cafcass said it was open for Mr B to have raised such concerns during the family court proceedings, and this was the appropriate forum for him to have done so.

38. Our complaint standards set out at paragraph 21 is also relevant here.

39. As we have set out in the previous section of this statement, any concerns Mr B had with the content of the safeguarding reports should have been raised in court. It would be for the judge to decide whether any further action was needed, and we cannot consider matters which are for a judge to decide upon.

40. We can see no indication of maladministration as Cafcass’s explanation during the complaints process appears appropriate and in line with our complaint standards.

41. We have decided to take no further action in this part of Mr B’s complaint.

Interim contact and the FCA’s disproportionate influence upon the court

42. Mr B said the court did not recommend interim contact between him and his children.

43. He said his ex-partner had initially agreed to such contact, but, during court proceedings, it emerged the FCA had advised against it.

44. Mr B said the FCA’s advice was troubling as it served to unnecessarily alienate his children from their paternal family.

45. Mr B also explains the FCA’s recommendation of no contact between him and his children had a disproportionate impact on the direction of the court case. He said such a significant and life-altering determination should not have rested solely with one individual.

46. Cafcass said its complaints team cannot intervene in court proceedings so it cannot assess advice to the court or comment on any recommendations it reached.

47. We recognise Mr B is very upset by these events and appreciate he has been through a great deal.

48. Our complaint standards set out at paragraph 21 are also relevant here.

49. It was for the family court’s judge to decide who had access to the children. The Judge directed Cafcass to provide advice to the court.

50. Its FCA did so using their professional judgement, and it is not for our Office to examine the advice they gave to Mr B’s ex-partner. We also cannot speculate upon what impact such advice may or may not have had upon the court’s decision.

51. If Mr B had concerns about the advice given to his ex-partner by the FCA or had concerns about how the FCA was carrying out their duties, it was open for him to raise this in court. This would be the proper forum to have explored these concerns.

52. We cannot find any indications of maladministration as Cafcass’s explanation during the complaints process appears appropriate and in line with our complaint standards.

53. We have decided to take no further action in this part of his complaint.

Conflicting information concerning filing of the safeguarding report

54. Mr B tells us he received an email from the family court on 21 May which stated the judge had adjourned the FHDRA until 2 June. The family court said it had adjourned because Cafcass had not yet filed the safeguarding report and it was expected the next day.

55. An adjournment is a temporary pause in court proceedings.

56. Mr B said Cafcass informed him it had correctly filed the safeguarding report with the court.

57. He said there is a contradiction between what the court told him and what Cafcass told him. He is concerned Cafcass made a mistake and this led to delays in the proceedings which caused unnecessary distress.

58. Cafcass said it shared all three safeguarding reports (14, 21 and 29 May) with the court and both parents.

59. It said it sent an updated safeguarding report to the court at 1.13pm on 21 May. We can see this was about an hour after the email Mr B received from the family court.

60. We asked Cafcass to provide some further information around the safeguarding report dated 21 May and whether there was any undue delay in supplying it to the family court.

61. Cafcass tells us it informed the court in its 14 May safeguarding report that checks were not complete. It set out that it was still awaiting outstanding information from the local authority alongside enhanced police checks.

62. It said it filed the updated safeguarding report with the court upon receipt of this further information on 21 May. We have seen evidence Cafcass sent both the 14 and 21 May safeguarding reports to the court on those days.

63. Cafcass added the court did not give any direction as to when it should submit the updated safeguarding report. Cafcass said it filed both the initial safeguarding report (14 May) and the updated safeguarding report (21 May) prior to the FHDRA on 23 May.

64. We understand the FHDRA took place on 23 May without the parents present. It was at this hearing that the court decided to adjourn the FHDRA to 2 June.

65. Our complaint standards, set out at paragraph 21 are also applicable here.

66. Our Principles say public bodies should act according to their statutory powers and duties.

67. We can see Cafcass submitted safeguarding reports to the court on both 14 and 21 May. We understand the court did not supply a deadline for the updated safeguarding report, so we cannot see the fact that Cafcass submitted it at 1.13pm on 21 May means it was late or that there is an indication of maladministration.

68. We acknowledge the court emailed Mr B on 21 May to say there was no safeguarding report included when it referred the matter to its legal adviser.

69. As we have set out above, Cafcass did submit a safeguarding report on 14 May. we note the court’s email said there was no safeguarding report, rather than an ‘updated’ safeguarding report.

70. This appears to imply the court did not have one at all, and as we have set out above, Cafcass filed one with the court on 14 May. An updated safeguarding report was then filed with the court on 21 May, prior to the FHDRA on 23 May.

71. This likely explains why Cafcass said during the complaints process that it had filed a safeguarding report so was unsure why the court had suggested otherwise.

72. Overall, we cannot see any evidence to indicate Cafcass did anything wrong. It filed the safeguarding reports with the court and clearly explained its position to Mr B during the complaints process, both of which appear to be in line with our Principles and our complaint standards.

73. We have therefore decided to take no further action in Mr B’s complaint.

1. We have carefully considered Mr B’s complaint about Cafcass. We were very sorry to read of the events that caused Mr B to complain and recognise these have been very difficult circumstances for him.

2. We cannot give a view in most of the matters Mr B raises because a family court judge is best placed to consider them.

3. On the matters we can consider, we have found, overall, Cafcass acted in line with applicable guidance and standards. We have found one matter where we think Cafcass did not act in line with applicable guidance. We are satisfied it has already apologised and that this is enough to put right what went wrong.

4. We have decided to take no further action in Mr B’s complaint.

5. We appreciate our decision will likely be disappointing. We understand Mr B has been through a great deal over the past few years and hope our statement clearly sets out how we reached our decision.