Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

6. Mr M complains about the service he received from Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). He complains that:

• The Service Manager (SM) likened him to an abusive character from a television show • The SM made false claims that Mr M had contacted her and a colleague from a withheld number • The SM issued Mr M with a cease-and-desist letter and threatened police involvement because he had raised concerns about her conduct • The SM aggressively instructed Mr M to leave the premises without cause, which he was attending for a scheduled appointment • Cafcass has failed to properly follow-up on his complaints

7. Mr M explained that the actions of Cafcass have left him with a long-lasting mistrust and upset with Cafcass and its employees.

8. By bringing the complaint to us, Mr M is seeking for us to recommend that Cafcass provide an apology and a commitment that lessons would be learnt from his experience.

9. Mr M has had ongoing dealings with Cafcass since Mach 2023, in relation to a case involving the custody of his two children, and his rights around contact with them.

10. Mr M explained that in his first meeting with a Cafcass Service Manager (SM) when explaining his attempts to maintain contact with his children, she likened him to a controlling and abusive character on the television show ‘Happy Valley’.

11. Mr M feels that the SM was biased against him from the initial meeting, and that there has been an ongoing pattern of events where he has been treated harshly and unfairly by the service. He complaints about the SM’s conduct throughout and says that her superiors have failed to respond properly to his complaints.

Unfair Comparison

14. Mr M complains that during his first meeting with the Service Manager (SM) from Cafcass on 10 May 2023, she likened him to a character from the television show ‘Happy Valley’. The character in question in a controlling, abusive spouse, and Mr M feels the comment was unfair, unwarranted and shows the SM was biased against him from the outset.

15. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us or an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Mr M to understand the reasons why he could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond.

16. When looking at complaints, we construct a timeline of events to ensure that we can consider the matter in time. There are several relevant dates for this point:

• Incident occurred: 10 May 2023 • Date of knowledge (when Mr M would have known about the incident): 10 May 2023 • Complaint made to Cafcass: 10 May 2023 • Final response from Cafcass: 7 June May 2023 • Complaint brought to MP: 19 August 2025

17. Mr M was aware of the issue he complains about at the time it occurred, on 10 May 2023. He raised his complaint very promptly (the same day) and received a final response within a month. However, over two years then passed before he brought the complaint to PHSO (via his MP).

18. Mr M has explained that as he had an ongoing case at the family court at the time, he did not raise a complaint because he was concerned about possible ramifications in escalating his complaint about Cafcass whiles the case was ongoing.

19. The complaints process exists so that matters can be raised and investigated, and it is important this is done in a timely fashion (if for no other reason than because the longer it is left, the more difficult matters become to investigate due to people’s recollections fading, retention of documents becoming less likely etc).

20. It is very common for complainants to have ongoing dealings with an organisation they wish to complain about, and we would expect the complaint to still be brought during this time. Mr M had no such difficulty in raising the complaint directly to Cafcass, and we would not consider it a justifiable reason to set aside the time bar for this. We will therefore not consider this complaint further

False Claims

21. Mr M complains that the SM made false claims that he had contacted her and a colleague from a withheld number. He says no evidence was ever provided for this.

22. We were unable to find reference to this in any of the complaint documents, and so asked Mr M to provide more information on the matter.

23. He confirmed that the SM made the claimed false allegations in court, during the hearing process.

24. If there is an allegation that someone lied in court, this would need to be raised with the judge. PHSO would have no authority to investigate this, and so we will end consideration of the matter here.

Cease-and-Desist Letter

25. The Service Manager (SM) issued Mr M with a cease-and-desist letter on 29 July 2024, and threatened police involvement. Mr M complains that this action was unwarranted and taken solely because he had raised concerns about her conduct surrounding the alleged false claims discussed in the previous section.

26. The Cafcass complaint response of 22 May 2025 notes that Mr M was sent one cease-and-desist letter on 29 July 2024. It explains that this was because the volume of emails he was sending at that time were considered to be harassment of the Service Manager (SM) and Family Court Adviser (FCA)

27. Cafcass explained that this document was to inform him that his actions, in this case excessive volume of emails, were inappropriate. The letter was to let him know that unless stopped he the conduct in question, Cafcass were prepared to take further action. According to Cafcass, the intent behind this was to encourage him to alter his conduct voluntarily.

28. Cafcass found this to be an appropriate course of action and was neither threatening nor accusatory.

29. During our investigation, we spoke with Cafcass to ask it to provide more detail or evidence about what it considered inappropriate about Mr M’s behaviour. The complaint response of 22 May 2025 had referred to an excessive volume of emails, but there was little detail included beyond that. We also asked Cafcass to provide any relevant policy document regarding this type of issue and a copy of the cease-and-desist letter sent to Mr M. Cafcass provided these.

30. We can see that letter was sent by the SM, and states “I write to you in my role as Service Manager and in relation to the 21 ‘No Caller ID’ telephone calls sent to [the FCA – name redacted by PHSO] in June and July 2024, and the two calls to myself on 23 July 2024.”

31. There appears to be a discrepancy here in the complaint response, as this had advised that the letter was sent due to excessive emails. Cafcass discussed this with us and acknowledged the discrepancy. However, as the caseworker that completed the complaint investigation (and sent the letter on 22 May 2025) no longer works for the organisation, Cafcass were unable to speak with her regarding this for an explanation.

32. In discussing the complaint with us, Cafcass advised that, from looking at the cease-and-desist letter, it does not get the sense that it was sent in retaliation due to Mr M’s complaint but acknowledged his perception that it was.

33. We can see that the cease-and-desist letter does clearly state what it saw as a cause for concern (in relation to Mr M’s telephone calls).

34. The letter went on to state: “Cafcass does not tolerate harassment, violent, abusive, intimidating, or threatening behaviour towards its staff and takes this behaviour very seriously. Whilst I recognise the strength of your feeling and your desire to communicate this to us, your persistence in contacting us are of concern and we consider this to be harassment of our staff. As you are aware your proceedings have concluded therefore you have no reason to contact anyone in Cafcass. You should not contact [FCA], or anyone in Cafcass directly as you are no longer in proceedings.

35. Should you continue to behave in this manner towards our staff, we will not hesitate to report you to the police. You must not seek to enter any Cafcass office nor approach a Family Court Advisor (FCA) in person nor instruct any other individual to do so on your behalf. If you attend a Cafcass office or approach any FCA and do not leave when asked, the police will be called and Cafcass will consider whether further steps need to be taken to ensure the well-being and safety of our staff and the children and families with whom we work.”

36. We do not have access to the telephone calls in questions, so cannot review those while considering whether or not the letter was sent appropriately.

37. Under our Principles of Good Administration – being customer focused – we expect organisations to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and about their own responsibilities. This includes making clear what the organisation considers to be acceptable behaviour. With that in mind, Cafcass was within its right to send the letter if it felt someone’s behaviour warranted it.

38. It is clear there are competing versions of events here, with both sides offering contrary views to the other. After considering the accounts given by both sides and weighing up whether it is possible to reconcile the two accounts or show on balance that one account is more convincing than the other, it has not been possible to reach a view. As such, we could not make a decision either way on this point, and so cannot make a finding of potential maladministration.

Office Incident

39. On 2 April 2025, Mr M attended a Cafcass office for a scheduled appointment. He complains that despite it being a pre-arranged meeting and his remaining calm throughout, the Service Manager aggressively instructed him to leave the premises.

40. 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.

41. In its final complaint response of 22 May 2025, Cafcass explained that during its investigation it discussed the incident with the Head of Practice (HoP), the Service Manager (SM), the Family Court Adviser (FCA) and the security staff present at the time, as well as with other staff in the Cafcass office on that date.

42. Cafcass stated that all accounts, including Mrs S’s, are similar in setting out that the interview was challenging and long in duration. All accounts are that the interview lasted 2.5 hours and concluded with Cafcass having all the information required from Mr M at that stage.

43. However, Cafcass states that during the interview, staff in the office reported hearing shouting from Ms S, which raised concerns for the FCA’s welfare. The FCA mentioned that Mr M became emotional and used strong language at times but managed to complete the interview.

44. On concluding the interview, staff reported that Mr M left the building then returned and had sought further discussion with the FCA. Cafcass says it understands that a brief conversation took place, which it says Mr M described as helpful, and that the FCA had been empathetic.

45. The FCA explained had all the information she required and that if she required more, she would make further contact with Mr M.

46. Cafcass notes that here Mr M’s account states that the SM then intervened and acted aggressively in asking him to leave. Cafcass says this differs from the SM’s account, which is supported by the security staff.

47. The SM and the security staff say that no one, including the SM, acted aggressively. The security team felt it necessary to monitor the situation in case it escalated and observed that the SM maintained a respectful distance and did not invade Mr M’s personal space. Cafcass notes that Mr M does not agree with this assessment.

48. Under the circumstances of a challenging interview whereby staff had become concerned for your shouting, Cafcass says the SM was worried about the safety of her staff and so correctly intervened to ask Mr M to leave.

49. Cafcass says there is no evidence to support Mr M’s assertion that this was aggressive or inappropriate, but it acknowledges that his view differs on this.

50. Cafcass notes that Mr M has told them he has a recording of the incident on several occasions but has not shared the video evidence. Cafcass says this is his decision, but it did limit the amount of information available for review.

51. As a result, Cafcass could only rely on his verbal and written account of the events and concludes that the SM acted appropriately.

52. During our investigation, we asked Mr M about the recording referred to in the Cafcass letter. While the video does show the SM asking Mr M to leave the premises, it does not include any of the conversation leading up to this. As a result, we cannot say for sure that it was caused by either party acting aggressively or that the SM intervened inappropriately.

53. It is also worth noting that as Cafcass was not provided with a copy of the recording during its investigation, it had to make a determination on the balance of probability.

54. It is clear there are competing versions of events here, with both sides offering contrary views to the other. After considering the accounts given by both sides and weighing up whether it is possible to reconcile the two accounts or show on balance that one account is more convincing than the other, it has not been possible to reach a view. As such, we could not make a decision either way on this point.

55. We will therefore not conduct a deeper investigation on this matter.

Complaint Handling

56. Mr M complains that Cafcass has failed to properly follow-up on his complaints. He explained that the SM’s superior initially agreed to meet with him to discuss his complaints but then ceased all communication as has failed to respond to any follow-ups.

57. We can see that Mr M sent an email to Cafcass on 11 April 2025 to say he had been offered another meeting or telephone call to discuss matters, but that this had never been followed up. He informed Cafcass he felt the failure to contact him was due to the incident with the SM outside the Cafcass office

58. Cafcass explained that the FCA had interviewed Mr M for 2.5 hours on 2 April 2025 and felt she had all the information she needed. She had told Mr M that if she required more, she would make further contact. As she did not, no further contact was made

59. We should begin by noting that here we are not examining the merit of the complaints themselves, as these have been looked at separately above. Here we are solely looking at whether Cafcass took adequate steps in responding to the complaints. This does not necessarily mean they gave an answer that Mr M was (or should have been) satisfied with, but rather whether we consider it did enough to fulfil its duty in terms of complaint handling, which includes (but may not be limited to) acknowledging receipt of the complaints, answering any questions asked, and providing responses in line with expected timescales.

60. We will not be considering how Cafcass handling the complaints relating to the ‘Happy Valley’ comment as this has already been ruled to be out of time. We are considering how Cafcass responses to the remaining matters that we have investigated.

61. We appreciate that Mr M does not agree with the assessment of events from Cafcass and is not satisfied with the outcome, however, we have considered this above in the previous sections. In regard to the complaints process itself, Cafcass has investigated the matters raised, and provided answers. Cafcass are not obliged to conduct a meeting with the complaint, and responses by email, telephone or and letter are quite appropriate.

62. We would not expect it to do more in this event, and so will not take this matter further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr M’s complaint about Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). We were very sorry to read of the circumstance which led to Mr M contacting our office and recognise that this has been a very difficult process.

2. For the complaint that a Cafcass staff member compared Mr M to a television character, the complaint falls outside of our time limit, and we have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.

3. For the complaints about the incident at the Cafcass office, the cease-and-desist letter which Cafcass sent, and its complaint handling process, we have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong

4. For the complaint that a Cafcass member of staff made false claims about Mr M in court, this would be a matter to be raised with the court and is therefore outside our remit.

5. In summary, we have not upheld Mr M’s complaint and will end consideration of it at this point.