Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

3. Mr X complains that the safeguarding letter contained factual inaccuracies and omissions, and that the concerns he subsequently raised in writing to the FCA, were ignored. He also complains that the concerns he raised about his son’s welfare, in relation to his former partner’s living arrangements, were not acted upon until one week later, and that concerns regarding his former partner’s alcohol use were not considered. Mr X further complains that the issues he formally raised with Cafcass in September were not considered, and that Cafcass informed him that he could not submit a complaint.

4. Mr X says that the safeguarding letter demonstrated bias and indirect discrimination against him on the basis that he is male. Mr X further says that Cafcass failed in its duty of care towards both him and his son, leaving him feeling devalued and unsupported. Mr X also says that the inclusion of irrelevant and misleading information within the safeguarding letter, has negatively affected his ability to maintain regular contact with his son. This has interfered with his right to spend time with his family.

5. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr X is seeking a change in policy, and for Cafcass to include any previous involvement with its service, within its reports. Mr X is also seeking a financial remedy.

6. During court proceedings Cafcass was instructed to file a safeguarding letter with the court.

7. On 9 June 2025, Mr X raised concerns with the FCA the contents of the safeguarding letter, which he said contained factual inaccuracies and omitted information.

8. We acknowledge that Mr X was concerned that these issues could affect the court’s understanding of the circumstances and the decisions made during the proceedings.

9. Following this, he contacted the call centre on 10 June and was informed that the FCA was away from work. He was provided with an alternative team email address, though which he could share his concerns.

10. Mr X made numerous further telephone calls to the call centre, and following this, he was contacted by the service manager on 18 June, to arrange a suitable time to speak.

11. As planned, Mr X was contacted on 23 June, During the conversation, it was explained that concerns regarding the safeguarding letter would need to be raised within the proceedings. Mr X was also advised that the concerns he had raised about his son’s welfare would be looked into. Mr X had a further call on 27 June and said he was informed that the enquiries had not yet been made.

12. On 30 June, Mr X submitted a complaint regarding the FCA and service manager. He included the original information he had originally sent to the FCA on 9 June. On the same day, a referral was made to the local authority.

13. On 3 July, Cafcass issued its response and confirmed that appropriate steps had been taken to respond to Mr X when he contacted the call centre. Cafcass also advised that concerns regarding the safeguarding letter should be raised with the court.

14. On 1 September, Mr X raised a further complaint. Cafcass responded the following day, reiterating that matters relating to assessments and recommendations were for the court to determine. The response advised that a manager would consider what action, if any, was required in relation to the concerns raised, and explained that the correspondence was not being taken forward under the complaints policy at that time.

15. On 2 September Mr X asked whether his complaint was being refused. On 6 September he resubmitted the same complaint, stating that he had previously submitted it on 1 September. He sent a further email on 16 September asking Cafcass to clarify whether his complaint had been accepted. Mr X was notified the following day, that a request for an everyday conversation had been sent to a local manager, who would be in contact.

16. On 30 September, Mr X submitted a further complaint regarding safeguarding concerns and alcohol use, by his former partner.

17. Cafcass issued its response on 6 November. It advised that it had considered the safeguarding concerns relating to alcohol misuse to the court. It explained that it had undertaken safeguarding assessments and supported the court's decision making, by providing relevant information, which resulted in protective measures being considered, and further local authority involvement being directed by the court.

18. Cafcass also reviewed its earlier response of 3 July, as requested by Mr X. Cafcass confirmed that it had considered his concerns regarding the safeguarding letter, the FCA and other members of staff, and concluded that appropriate advice and signposting had been provided. This included information about the steps available to him, if he remained dissatisfied.

21. Before we decide if we should investigate of a complaint, we consider several factors. One of these is whether an investigation is likely to bring about the outcome the person is looking to achieve by bringing their concerns to us.

22. Cafcass is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. Its role is to safeguard and promote the welfare of children involved in family proceedings. It works with children and their families and advises the court on what it considers to be in the children’s best interests. It may also make provisions for children to be legally represented and provides information, advice, and support to families.

23. We should explain that Cafcass do not make decisions in family court cases. Instead, its role is to assist the court, typically by preparing and submitting reports for the court’s consideration.

24. We acknowledge Mr X’s concerns that the safeguarding letter contained ‘serious factual errors’ and that he raised these in writing with the FCA shortly afterwards, which he stated was ‘ignored’.

25. It is noted that, during subsequent telephone calls with Cafcass, Mr X was informed that the FCA was absent from work, and that he was provided with an alternative email address to submit his concerns. Mr X was also advised that he should raise those concerns as part of the proceedings.

26. It is important to note that, once safeguarding letters are filed, they form part of the evidence before the court. If a party considers that the safeguarding letter contains inaccuracies, or is misleading, this should be raised within the court proceedings. It is then for the court to consider those concerns, and, where appropriate, direct any further investigation or reporting.

27. We do not consider it our role to intervene in that process. We note that Cafcass also appropriately advised Mr X to raise his concerns with the court, including in its response dated 3 July 2025.

28. Mr X told us that he raised concerns about his former partner’s alcohol use and his son’s welfare, in relation to her living arrangements, and that Cafcass did not act on these until one week later.

29. Cafcass told us that, following further enquiries, a referral was made to the local authority on 30 June. The local authority considered that referral and advised Cafcass that no further action would be taken at that time. Cafcass confirmed that those concerns were included within its first Risk Assessment filed with the court.

30. Cafcass advised in its formal response, that it raised those concerns during the court hearing on 30 July, which were considered within the proceedings and led to steps being taken, including alcohol testing.

31. It is noted that the court reviewed the available information, including Cafcass’ Risk Assessments and the results of the alcohol testing, and concluded that the threshold had been met to progress matters further. The court order (dated 5 September) directed a Section 37 report to be undertaken by the local authority, as it considered it may be appropriate for a care or supervision order to be made.

32. Cafcass advised that its involvement ended on 5 September 2025, following the court's decision to discharge the direction to complete a Section 7 report (which had been directed in an earlier order). This was because responsibility for further assessment had transferred to the local authority, who were assisting the court.

33. In relation to the safeguarding concerns, Cafcass acted in line with its child safeguarding policy by identifying risk, escalating concerns appropriately, and ensuring the court and relevant agencies were kept informed, which is also in line with Our Principles.

34. Mr X also told us that the concerns he formally raised in September were not considered, and that Cafcass informed him that he could not submit a complaint. We sought further information from Cafcass regarding this matter.

35. Cafcass confirmed that Mr X submitted a complaint on 1 September 2025. The response advised that a manager would consider what action, if any, was required in relation to his concerns, but that the matter would not be taken forward under its formal complaints process. Cafcass told us that Mr X’s concerns were instead being addressed through its ‘everyday conversation’. However, having reviewed the correspondence, we can understand why this caused confusion, as the response did not explicitly state this and instead referred only to a manager considering what needed to happen, in response to his concerns.

36. It is noted that Mr X subsequently submitted the same complaint on 6 September. Cafcass confirmed that an everyday conversation request was sent to a local manager, and that he was notified of this on 17 September. Cafcass also confirmed that a copy of its complaints policy, together with information explaining the everyday conversation process was also sent to Mr X. It further advised that an everyday conversation took place with a local manager on 30 October.

37. Mr X raised a further complaint on 30 September. These concerns were responded to under Cafcass’ formal complaints procedure on 6 November.

38. We recognise that Mr X may not agree with the responses he received from Cafcass, however, the evidence shows that Cafcass did respond to his concerns. We are satisfied that Cafcass responded to those concerns through two separate processes, namely, the everyday conversation approach, and the formal complaints procedure. We therefore cannot conclude that Cafcass prevented Mr X from raising a complaint.

39. In summary, we have decided we will not take further action on Mr X’s complaint. This is because Cafcass acted in line with its child safeguarding policy and Our Principles, when dealing with the safeguarding concerns raised. Cafcass also correctly advised Mr X to raise his concerns regarding the contents of the safeguarding letter within the court proceedings.

40. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr X was looking for from his complaint and we acknowledge, that this has been a difficult and stressful time for him. We hope we have explained why we have come to our decision. We thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention and wish him well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint about Cafcass, which we understand has been a very difficult time for him.

2. Having looked carefully at the evidence, we have not identified any failings in the circumstances which led to Mr X approaching us. For that reason, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. We will explain the reasons below in more detail.