Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

3. Mr H complains about the actions taken by Cafcass in September 2024. Specifically, he says:

• Following a phone call from Mr H to Cafcass, the duty family court adviser (duty FCA) contacted the mother of his son alleging he was planning to collect his son from school and not return him to her care – Mr H says this is untrue and during the phone call he was only enquiring how to increase contact with his son.

• Cafcass did not record this phone call.

4. Mr H says because of Cafcass’ action, his existing childcare arrangement was stopped, and his case had to be heard in court. Mr H says stopping the previous childcare arrangement meant he lost significant meaningful time with his son, which was very painful for him. Following these events, Mr H was only able to have supervised contact on a weekly basis.

Mr H had to pay to see his son at the contact centre.

5. Because there was no recording of the call, there was no way for Mr H to prove what he had said.

6. By bringing this complaint to us, Mr H seeks financial remedy. He also wants Cafcass to review its processes and to record all calls so conversations can be verified in the event of any future disputes.

7. Mr H had a childcare arrangement in place whereby he had unsupervised contact with his son. He collected his son from school on Tuesdays and Thursdays, alternating Fridays and weekends were split. He always returned his son home to his mother’s care. Mr H told us this was a good childcare arrangement and had been in place for nearly 18 months.

8. Mr H phoned Cafcass in September 2024. Mr H spoke to the duty FCA.

9. Following this phone call, the duty FCA phoned Mr H’s son’s mother. They told her Mr H was planning to keep his son after collecting him from school and not return him to his mother’s care.

10. Mr H said his son’s mother then terminated their existing childcare arrangement. From this time, Mr H was only allowed to have weekly, supervised contact with his son at a contact centre. Mr H had to pay to see his son at the contact centre.

13. 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.

Actions by staff in response to Mr H’s phone call

14. Mr H complains a duty FCA misrepresented what he said on a phone call. He said the duty FCA contacted his son’s mother and made false allegations which resulted in his son’s mother terminating their existing child-care agreement.

15. Mr H said he called Cafcass on 18 September 2024 and spoke to the duty FCA. He says during the call he sought advice on how to increase contact with his son, progressing contact to overnight stays. He said he asked about gradually increasing contact time, in a way that was appropriate for his son and supported his emotional well-being.

16. Mr H said he expressed his wish to introduce overnight stays in a way that respected his son’s needs and included discussions with his mother. He said he asked for advice to ensure his son could continue to have a stable relationship with both parents.

17. Mr H said he had end the call abruptly, before he had concluded his conversation with the duty FCA, due to an interruption.

18. Mr H said after this phone call, the duty FCA phoned his son’s mother. He said they falsely alleged he was planning to collect his son from school the next day, in line with their existing agreement, but not return him to his mother’s care. Mr H said this was completely incorrect and at no point did he say he planned to keep his son without agreement.

19. Mr H said the duty FCA did not attempt to verify his intentions before taking action. He said a simple follow-up call would have prevented the unnecessary escalation but instead, they acted on incomplete information and assumed his intentions. Mr H said he understands Cafcass needs to act on safeguarding concerns, but actions must be based on clear and substantiated concerns, not misinterpretations.

20. Mr H said ever since separating with his son’s mother he has complied with all decisions, including the existing childcare arrangement. He said he complied when the court decided he could not take his son on a family holiday in July 2024 and had never kept his son for overnight stays, apart from when his son’s mother was in hospital. He said he has always returned his son to his mother’s care as arranged. Mr H said he has been following the legal process of applying for a child arrangements order (when the court decides where the child lives and who they spend time with) and has been complying with court attendance as and when instructed.

21. In its complaint response Cafcass said it had not found any fault with the actions of the duty FCA. It said Mr H had told them he had consulted with a law firm who advised he had equal rights and responsibilities and said he intended to keep his son if his mother did not agree with his wish for increased contact with his son. Cafcass said the duty FCA advised Mr H against him keeping his son as this might be distressing for his son. It said the duty FCA relayed their concerns to Mr H’s son’s mother as they were concerned for Mr H’s welfare.

22. Cafcass records communications with families it works with in the relevant case contact log. Regarding Mr H’s phone call, the duty FCA documented Mr H intends to ask his son’s mother for more access to his son, including sleepovers but she is not co-operating. They wrote Mr H told them he had spoken to a law firm and had read on its website that as the father he has equal rights and responsibilities. They documented Mr H said he is trying to be amicable but if his son’s mother refuses his requests what can he do. They documented Mr H asked if he could keep his son when he picks him up from school, and said he would do this anyway, if his son’s mother did not agree. The duty FCA documented they advised Mr H not to do this as it could be distressing for his son. They documented Mr H said as far as the law is concerned, he is the father and can retain his child.

23. The duty FCA documented in the case contact log, they phoned Mr H’s son’s mother. They wrote they explained they had concerns about what Mr H had shared with them regarding retaining his son. They also made a referral to children’s services.

24. The following day, another duty FCA documented a further phone call with Mr H. They said Mr H wanted to ask his son’s mother about increasing contact with his son. They said Mr H said he had equal rights and should be staying with him 50%. They documented they repeated advice their colleague had given Mr H recently which was not to make any unilateral changes to their existing childcare arrangement and to only do this by agreement. They documented Mr H said he will not make changes without an agreement or court order.

25. The duty FCA documented that a safeguarding referral had already been made the previous day. They also documented they believed Mr H intended to keep his son on collection that day and was trying to get them to affirm this position. They documented they reiterated to Mr H the previous advice that it would not be in his son’s interests to change his circumstances overnight and it is not his right to override his son’s mother’s views.

26. The accounts we have on this matter differ. Mr H says he never said he planned to keep his son without agreement. The first duty FCA said Mr H said he would collect his son from school and keep him for an overnight stay even if his son’s mother did not agree. The second duty FCA also documented they believed Mr H intended to keep his son after collecting him from school.

27. On this basis, we weighed up these accounts to reach a view on the balance of probabilities about what happened, taking into account the reliability of the evidence available.

28. We have considered that we have accounts from two separate duty FCAs who were both concerned Mr H intended to keep his son and not return him to his mother’s care.

29. We have also considered the timing the records were made by each party. Mr H’s accounts, consistent throughout, were written after the events. He raised his complaint to Cafcass in March 2025 and completed our complaint form in June 2025. With the passing of time, memories might fade or alter.

30. Cafcass’ recording and retention policy says staff should make contemporaneous records where possible, which it explains are records made at the time of the event or so shortly afterwards that the facts are fresh in the memory of the author. The case contact log shows staff documented their summaries of the phone calls with Mr H in on the day the phone calls occurred.

31. Given the contemporaneous nature of these logs, and two separate duty FCA’s noted the same concerns, we consider this compelling evidence about what happened.

32. This means, on the balance of probabilities, we think it is more likely than not the duty FCAs did have concerns about Mr H’s son’s welfare and did not make false allegations. Using this view, we went on to consider whether what happened was in line with relevant standards.

33. It is documented following the first phone call with Mr H, the duty FCA submitted a safeguarding referral to children’s services. They also documented they phoned Mr H’s son’s mother to advise her of their concerns.

34. Cafcass’ child safeguarding policy says it has a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of any child it is concerned about and FCAs should take appropriate and prompt action when there is concern about the safety of a child. It also says it is good practice to inform a parent / carer before making a referral about the safety of a child, when it is judged safe to do so.

35. Government guidance says practitioners should be proactive in sharing information as early as possible to help identify, assess, and respond to risks or concerns about the safety and welfare of children. The guidance says sharing information about any adults with whom that child has contact, which may impact the child’s safety or welfare, is also critical.

36. We think Cafcass acted in line with the principles of this guidance by informing Mr H’s son’s mother of their concerns promptly. We cannot see Cafcass got things wrong.

37. We understand this is not the outcome Mr H was hoping for. We understand how difficult it was for Mr H to lose contact with his son and in no way mean to diminish his distress.

Call recordings

38. Mr H also complains Cafcass did not record his phone call on 18 September 2024. He said the duty FCA misunderstood what he had said and did not seek to clarify this with him. He said the duty FCA then acted on incorrect information. Mr H said because the phone call was not recorded there was no way to verify what had been said.

39. Cafcass told us Mr H’s phone call was not recorded. It said it does not routinely record phone calls with parents and / or other family members. It said a parent may ask to record their phone call, but it has no record of Mr H requesting to record a phone call in September 2024.

40. Cafcass kept a contact log of communications with Mr H. We can see staff documented a summary of the phone call with Mr H on the day it took place.

41. Cafcass’ recording and retention policy says staff should make comprehensive and consistent records, with information recorded contemporaneously whenever possible.

42. Our Principles of Good Administration say public bodies should create and maintain reliable and usable records as evidence of their activities.

43. We can see staff acted in line with guidance and documented a clear summary of Mr H’s phone call on the day it was made in its contact log. The contact log also shows subsequent action taken by staff and further communications with Mr H. We have not found any requirement for Cafcass to make recordings of phone calls.

44. We understand why Mr H would have liked for the call to be recorded. From what Mr H told us, it is clear this has been a distressing time for him. We are very sorry to hear about his experience with Cafcass and how it has affected him. We hope we have clearly explained our decision on what we appreciate is a difficult and sensitive matter for him.

1. We are very sorry to hear of the events that led Mr H to complain to us. We understand how upsetting it must have been for Mr H to lose time with his son when his previous childcare arrangement stopped.

2. We have carefully considered Mr H’s complaint about the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). We have seen no indication that Cafcass got things wrong. We are sorry this is not the outcome Mr H was hoping for.