Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

3. Ms X complains that the Guardian in her family court case did not appropriately address the safeguarding concerns she raised regarding domestic abuse. She also complains that the Guardian was not impartial and demonstrated bias in their portrayal of Ms X, and that relevant information about her child’s care needs and vulnerabilities was not adequately reflected in the assessments and recommendations. Furthermore, Ms X complains that Cafcass did not adequately respond to her concerns.

4. Ms X says this situation has had a significant emotional impact and has eroded her trust in the system. She also says she has had to shoulder the burden of gathering information and pursuing formal processes while managing her child’s complex needs, which has had ongoing effects on both her and her child’s wellbeing.

5. By bringing her complaint to us, Ms X is seeking an investigation into Cafcass’ handling of her case, including the professional conduct of the appointed Guardian and the handling of safeguarding matters.

6. On 6 September 2025, Ms X raised domestic abuse concerns regarding her child in an email to the Guardian involved in her family court case. The allegations included instances of domestic abuse, along with photographs of bruising and other evidence. Ms X explained that these injuries occurred while her child was in the care of the other parent, with the most recent injuries happening after the implementation of contact arrangements recommended by Cafcass and approved by the court.

7. Upon receiving this information, the Guardian sought advice from their manager and was advised to contact the child’s school to gather further information.

8. On 9 September 2025, Ms X lodged a complaint with Cafcass about the Guardian’s safeguarding decisions and handling of her case. She alleged that her concerns regarding domestic abuse and safeguarding were disregarded or omitted and that the Guardian was not acting in her child’s best interests. Ms X also stated that her child, who has disabilities and is medically vulnerable, had returned home from overnight visits with the other parent ‘covered in multiple soft tissue injuries’. She said these injuries were examined by her GP, who subsequently made a MASH referral. Ms X further claimed the Guardian had shown bias, acting as an advocate for the other parent, rather than maintaining neutrality and a child-focused role.

9. Cafcass issued its complaint response on 22 October 2025, acknowledging concerns about the Guardian’s professional practice and conduct in relation to Ms X’s complaint. It admitted the Guardian had failed to sufficiently assess and consider her domestic abuse concerns, previously raised in a safeguarding letter filed in April. Cafcass identified learning opportunities for both the Guardian and their manager and advised that her ongoing domestic abuse concerns would be shared with the Guardian's manager and Head of Practice. However, with regard to her concerns about bias and omissions, Cafcass explained it could not investigate a complaint about the Guardian's assessments, professional opinions, or recommendations, as these are decisions for the court.

12. 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 child’s best interests. It may also make provisions for children to be legally represented and provides information, advice, and support to families.

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

14. Ms X raised safeguarding concerns covering domestic abuse via email to the Guardian, providing photographs of bruising and emphasising her child’s complex care needs and vulnerabilities. Ms X alleges these concerns were not adequately addressed.

15. To put this part of the complaint, and our decision, in context, it may help to say more about Cafcass’s role in safeguarding children.

16. The Department for Education is responsible for child protection in England. It sets the policy, law and guidance for how the child protection system should work.

17. Local safeguarding partners are responsible for child protection policies, procedures and guidance in their area.

18. Three organisations lead local safeguarding arrangements: • the local authority • the integrated care board, previously called the clinical commissioning group • the police.

19. These organisations work with other agencies, including Cafcass, to protect children and promote their welfare. This includes making arrangements to identify and support children who may be at risk of harm.

20. At the time, Cafcass had a safeguarding framework. It explained how Cafcass officers should deal with safeguarding concerns. The framework said that, where there were concerns a child may be at risk of significant harm, a Cafcass officer should discuss this with their manager and consider making a referral to Local Authority Children’s Social Care. This could be because the child or family needed support, or because the child was, or might be, at risk of significant harm.

21. The framework also said that, if a professional assessment found that allegations of domestic violence could mean there was an ongoing risk of harm from a violent parent, Cafcass should make a referral to the local authority.

22. It is clear that Cafcass took steps to investigate Ms X’s concerns by reviewing documentation on file. Cafcass confirmed the Guardian had reviewed Ms X’s email and sought their manager’s advice at the time of the concerns being raised. The manager’s advice was to seek further information from the child’s school.

23. Cafcass has since acknowledged that this response was insufficient. Given the severity of the concerns and the specific vulnerabilities of Ms X’s child, Cafcass stated the information should have been shared with Children’s Services for a safeguarding referral to be considered. Additionally, Cafcass noted that the advice provided by the Guardian’s manager had inadequately considered the risk of cumulative harm or further danger to the child.

24. Cafcass admitted shortcomings in its safeguarding response and apologised. It recognised that its safeguarding policy should have resulted in a more robust approach to Ms X’s concerns, particularly regarding domestic abuse and the medical vulnerabilities of her child.

25. As we have explained, Cafcass is not responsible for safeguarding children overall. If Ms X still had concerns, she could have raised them with the local authority herself. The local authority, not Cafcass, would then have decided what action to take, if any. Even so, we understand how upsetting it must have been for Ms X to find out that agencies had not done enough to address her concerns, especially when she had placed trust in the safeguarding process.

26. Following Ms X’s complaint, Cafcass stated that it shared the findings with its Head of Practice, who supported the investigation’s conclusions and acknowledged the need for learning. Cafcass also confirmed it contacted Children’s Services to communicate Ms X’s concerns.

27. Furthermore, Cafcass highlighted that the findings of Ms X’s complaint would inform a regional management discussion aimed at addressing inconsistencies in the advice provided to practitioners. Cafcass stated that the discussion will focus on clarifying when it is appropriate to refer to Children’s Services and when further information should be sought first.

28. Under our UK Central Government Complaint Standards, we expect organisations to treat complaints as a chance to learn and improve. They should support staff to see complaints as useful feedback and explain what they have learned and how they have used it to improve services. We also expect organisations to welcome complaints positively and recognise them as valuable insight into how they can improve services.

29. Having considered this carefully, we are satisfied that Cafcass has acted in line with our expectations. Whilst this may not undo the distress Ms X experienced, we acknowledge that these steps demonstrate an effort by Cafcass to learn and improve its practices in response to the issues raised. We hope these measures bring Ms X some reassurance that her complaint has led to meaningful action.

30. Ms X also expressed dissatisfaction with how the Guardian’s assessments and reports were handled. She felt that critical information, such as her child’s complex care needs and medical vulnerabilities, was omitted. Ms X believed that evidence from clinical professionals and developmental details had not been adequately reflected, leading to concerns about bias and impartiality.

31. It is important to note that, the assessments and reports prepared by Cafcass form part of the evidence for the court’s consideration. These reports are not binding, and their contents can be challenged in court. Where there are concerns about inaccuracies, omissions, or bias, it is ultimately for the court to decide the significance or weight of the reports and any recommendations made.

32. We acknowledge that Ms X may feel the response provided by Cafcass has not fully resolved her concerns. We also understand her sense of disappointment and distress regarding how this matter has unfolded and the difficulties she has faced throughout this process.

33. Under Our Principles of Good Administration – putting things right, we expect organisations to recognise and apologise for any failings, explain what went wrong, and take appropriate and timely corrective action. The evidence demonstrates that Cafcass has acknowledge its shortcomings in its practice, apologised, and taken steps to support learning and improvement.

34. We recognise how emotionally challenging this has been for Ms X and her child, and we do not underestimate the impact it has had on them both.

35. After considering Ms X’s complaint, we are satisfied that Cafcass has taken sufficient action to address her concerns. This is because it accepted the safeguarding failings, apologised, explained the learning identified, escalated the issue appropriately and took steps aimed at preventing similar issues in future. We would not have recommended that Cafcass do anything further, and we will therefore not be taking any further action on this complaint.

36. We understand this outcome may not be the one Ms X was hoping for, and we offer our sympathies as we know how difficult and personal this matter has been for her. We hope this explanation provides clarity and assurance that her concerns were thoroughly considered and investigated.