Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

4. Mr B complains Cafcass recommended he attend a RESPECT-accredited Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Programme (DAPP) in June 2025, but acknowledged these programmes were inaccessible on 3 September 2025.

5. Mr B says this programme has a policy not to accept participants whilst legal proceedings are ongoing, meaning he was ineligible for it. Mr B says Cafcass should have confirmed availability and eligibility of the DAPP before recommending it.

6. As a result, Mr B says Cafcass’ recommendations were relied upon by the Court to restrict his contact with his daughter. He says their relationship has been impacted by a year of supervised-only contact. Mr B says he has suffered significant distress, depression, a deterioration of his mental health and the need for mental health treatment.

7. Mr B also says he was wrongly portrayed in Court. He says the recommendations being unachievable caused him to incur additional costs due to prolonged family court proceedings.

8. Mr B would like an apology, acknowledgement and a financial remedy as outcomes.

9. According to the documents we have reviewed, Mr B and his ex-partner separated in June 2023. An application for family court proceedings was filed on 14 July. Mr B’s ex-partner made an application for a Child Arrangement Order and a Prohibited Steps Order. The latter was made on 15 August. Mr B also made an application for the same Orders.

10. A Child Arrangement Order is a court order that determines where a child will live, who they will have contact with, and how much time they spend with each parent or family member. A Prohibited Steps Order is a legal injunction to protect a child’s welfare by stopping a parent or guardian from taking certain actions without court approval.

11. On 22 February 2024, Cafcass produced a Section 7 Report for a dispute resolution hearing scheduled for 6 March 2024. Cafcass recommended a fact-finding hearing be held to consider allegations of domestic abuse made by Mr B’s ex-partner.

12. A hearing took place on 9 April, in which the court determined a fact-finding hearing was necessary. The court limited the hearing to consider the allegations of domestic abuse made by Mr B’s ex-partner against him.

13. On 12 July, a District Judge made a decision on interim contact between Mr B and his daughter. This was to last until the next hearing.

14. A fact-finding hearing took place on 7 and 8 January 2025. The Judges made a Child Arrangements and Prohibited Steps Order.

15. On 4 June, Cafcass produced a Section 7 Addendum Report. Under paragraph 44, the Family Court Advisor recommended Mr B identified and attended a RESPECT-accredited domestic abuse course, ensuring this covers victim empathy, behaviours, the impact of domestic abuse and the impact of domestic abuse on children.

16. A private dispute resolution appointment and cost determination hearing took place on 18 June. The Judges listed the case for a final hearing on 15 and 16 December.

17. On 20 June, Mr B contacted the Family Court Advisor (the Adviser) to request support with making a referral to a RESPECT-accredited course within his area.

18. On 14 August, the Adviser observed Mr B with his daughter as per the previous court order. They wrote to the Court with their recommendations on 3 September.

19. The Adviser amended the wording around the RESPECT-accredited courses to ‘encourage’ opposed to ‘recommend’. The Adviser also requested permission from the Court for the Section 7 Report to be shared with the local authority to see if it was able to assist Mr B in identifying courses or support services around domestic abuse and victim empathy.

20. On 4 September, Mr B raised his complaint with Cafcass regarding the recommendations made by the Adviser. Cafcass acknowledged the complaint on 5 September and provided an initial response on 25 September.

21. At the final hearing on 15 and 16 December 2025, the Court ordered Cafcass to undertake a referral to Mr B’s local authority to assist him in identifying a DAPP covering the points specified in the earlier Section 7 Report and associated documents.

22. Mr B raised a further complaint with Cafcass on 29 December. Cafcass provided its final response on 4 February 2026.

25. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we cannot link the events complained about with the negative impact Mr B has claimed.

DAPP recommendation

26. Mr B says Cafcass recommended he attend a RESPECT-accredited DAPP in June 2025, but acknowledged these programmes were inaccessible on 3 September 2025.

27. He says this programme has a policy not to accept participants whilst legal proceedings are ongoing, meaning he was ineligible for it. Mr B says Cafcass should have confirmed availability and eligibility of the DAPP before recommending it.

28. In this case, we consider our Principles are most relevant to the complaint. Our Principles say public bodies should follow their own policy and procedural guidance.

29. We also consider our Complaint Standards to be relevant. This says organisations should give a clear and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts. Each account compares what happened with what should have happened.

30. In his complaints to Cafcass, Mr B says the DAPPs were not available to him as they did not accept referrals from Cafcass, nor did they accept self-referrals. He says the DAPPs also excluded cases currently in private court, which meant he could not access courses until December 2026. This information was provided by the Adviser following contact with a course and relayed to the Court in Cafcass’ letter of 3 September 2025.

31. Mr B also says Cafcass had failed to meet its own standards, as set out in sections 1.1 and 1.7 of its reporting to court policy. Specifically, he says the Adviser admitted during the final hearing of 15 and 16 December 2025 the recommendation made around DAPPs could not be complied with at that time. He says she also admitted she was unaware of the eligibility criteria when making the recommendation.

32. We have reviewed the policy referred to by Mr B. Section 1.1 says reports assist the judiciary by providing clear accounts of work undertaken, and by setting out analyses and recommendations. It says reports should contain relevant, child-focused information and an evidence-base for the recommendations made.

33. Section 1.7 says the information obtained by practitioners during their work includes both factual information and opinion. Practitioners may draw on training, professional experience, research, and evidence-based tools to analyse this information.

34. In its Section 7 Report of June 2025, Cafcass recommended Mr B identify and attend a RESPECT-accredited DAPP course. It noted its assessment that Mr B had further learning to complete including victim empathy and the impact of domestic abuse.

35. We note that in Cafcass’ letter of 3 September 2025, it acknowledged Mr B had contacted it seeking support with making a referral to a course within his area as they did not accept self-referrals. The Adviser noted they told Mr B that Cafcass were unable to assist in making referrals, but they could contact his local authority to see if it could assist.

36. The Adviser noted they had explained to Mr B that Cafcass was not able to recommend courses, nor confirm if a particular course was sufficient to his learning. They explained it is within their role to assess the learning from the course, and the impact had on his daughter.

37. In the complaint investigation, the Adviser’s Manager documented they had discussed the case during supervision. They noted the Adviser assessed it was necessary for Mr B to complete a DAPP. The Advisor recognised the local limitations of this, and, since Cafcass’ own DAPPs were decommissioned, it has no control over the timescales for the courses.

38. In its initial complaint response, Cafcass did not identify or acknowledge any failings with regard to the recommendation of a DAPP. It signposted Mr B to raise his concerns in court. At this stage, the final hearing had not yet taken place.

39. Following receipt of Mr B’s additional concerns in December 2025, a Manager noted the recommendation for Mr B to attend a DAPP did not align with practice pathway or guidance in the absence of DAPPs. They noted Cafcass cannot recommend or endorse self-funding or self-referrals, but this was not picked up in earlier complaint work.

40. We consider this to be an indication of a failing. Cafcass has not acted in line with our Principles, which say public bodies should follow their own policy and procedural guidance. It is also not in line with our Complaint Standards. We cannot see that the initial response was based on established facts, as indicated by the Manager’s reaction.

41. Section 5 of Cafcass’ complaints policy says where something has gone wrong, it will work with the complainant to understand the impact and to try put things right. If it is not possible to do so, Cafcass will consider what action can be taken to remedy the impact. Remedies can include:

• an acknowledgement, explanation or meaningful apology for the error • amending Cafcass records or clarifying things with the Court • changing policies or practices to prevent the same mistake happening again.

42. In its final complaint response, Cafcass acknowledged it incorrectly recommended a DAPP in its Section 7 Report and apologised for this. It explained it previously delivered DAPPs, but the service formally ended in March 2023 with referrals ceasing from September 2022. As a result, Advisers should no longer recommend DAPPs.

43. Cafcass explained the Adviser involved undertook situational supervision with their Service Manager. They acknowledged they were unaware they should not make such recommendations. The Adviser reflected on the error and identified learning to prevent if from happening again.

44. We consider these actions to be appropriate and in line with Cafcass’ complaints policy. Cafcass has acknowledged the error and apologised for it. The Adviser has also acknowledged their error and identified learning to ensure it did not happen again. These actions are also in line with our Complaint Standards.

45. Mr B told us his desired outcomes would be an apology and acknowledgement. As Cafcass has already offered this, we consider it has taken the appropriate action on this matter. We would not ask an organisation to provide a remedy it has already offered.

46. Mr B also told us he felt the remedy offered was insufficient. He told us the service improvements do not remedy the impact on him specifically. He told us he is also seeking a financial remedy to recognise this impact.

47. We do not consider that we can link Mr B’s claimed impact with the failings identified.

48. During our correspondence, Mr B stated Cafcass’ recommendations were relied upon by the Court to restrict his contact with his daughter. He told us he has been put in an impossible situation. He told us the recommendations being unachievable led him to incur six months of additional legal costs due to prolonged family court proceedings.

49. Mr B also told us his mental health deteriorated to the extent he thought about ending his life and has been prescribed medication. We were very sorry to hear this was the case. We acknowledge family court proceedings can be incredibly stressful and upsetting for those involved. It must have been difficult for Mr B to go through this.

50. As part of our primary investigation, Cafcass provided to us a copy of the Judges’ Reasons for the hearings in January, June and December 2025. Whilst we cannot comment on any judicial actions or decisions, we do consider some of the family court documents to be of relevance when considering Mr B’s claimed impact.

51. Within the Judges Reasons, it is documented that the Court found, on the balance of probabilities, Mr B was abusive towards his ex-partner throughout their relationship. The Court also considered it found this abuse continued postseparation and throughout court proceedings. It ordered Mr B to pay his ex-partners legal costs.

52. This shows there were wider issues before the Court which were separate from Cafcass’ DAPP recommendation. For that reason, we consider the family proceedings were prolonged due to Mr B’s actions, rather than as a result of any actions taken by Cafcass. We therefore cannot link this part of Mr B’s claimed impact to the failings identified by Cafcass.

53. We note the Court Order from January 2025 ordered Cafcass to undertake a Section 7 Addendum Report. The Order specifically requested it cover Mr B’s insight into the findings made against him and whether any action in this regard is necessary.

54. Further, in the hearing documents from 18 June 2025, the Court considered live evidence of the parents was necessary for it to understand Mr B’s insight. It is documented this was because he challenged the Section 7 Report and Cafcass’ assessment that he has limited insight into the issue of domestic abuse.

55. We note in its letter to the Court dated 3 September 2025, the Adviser acknowledged the difficulties Mr B had faced in trying to attend a domestic abuse course and that he would be unable to begin one until December 2026. They requested permission from the Court for their Report to be shared with Mr B’s local authority for assistance in identifying courses.

56. In the Court Order made at the final hearing, the Court told Cafcass to undertake a referral to his local authority to assist him in identifying a DAPP. A Legal Adviser emailed Cafcass on 23 December 2025 to request it make the referral.

57. In consideration of all the evidence, it appears the Court was aware at the final hearing that Cafcass could not refer Mr B for a RESPECT-accredited DAPP. It was also aware DAPPs were inaccessible as a self-referral for Mr B until 12-months after the final hearing. The Court still ordered Cafcass to refer Mr B to his local authority to identify a suitable DAPP.

58. It is important to note Section 7 Reports are a piece of evidence the Court considers when making its decisions in family proceedings. It is for a Judge to determine how much weight to place on this, and for each party to make any challenges to this. Mr B had the opportunity to challenge the recommendations during proceedings, which he appears to have done according to his complaint to Cafcass.

59. For these reasons, we cannot conclude the impact Mr B describes was caused by Cafcass’ failing. The evidence shows Cafcass made an incorrect recommendation, and it was right to acknowledge and apologise for that. However, the decisions about contact, the progress of the proceedings and costs were matters for the Court. Any disagreement with those decisions would need to be raised through the court process, not through this complaint. From our correspondence with Mr B, we understand he has recently re-started family court proceedings. We wish him all the best with this.

1. We have carefully considered Mr B’s complaint about the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). We were very sorry to hear of the circumstances that led Mr B to approach us. We understand family court proceedings can be very stressful and upsetting for all involved. It must have been a very difficult time for him.

2. Having looked at the evidence, we have seen that Cafcass has not acted in line with relevant guidance. In its final complaint response, Cafcass acknowledged and apologised for this. It also implemented learning for the staff member involved and wrote to the Family Court to clarify its position. We consider these actions are sufficient to put things right.

3. We have carefully thought about Mr B’s claimed impact. We do not consider we can link this to the failings by Cafcass. We have therefore decided not to take any further action on Mr B’s complaint. We hope he is reassured by our explanation below.