CONTRIBUTION TO COMMITTEE ON THE LORD CHANCELLOR’S DEPARTMENT  -  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO CAFACSS.

The paper from the committee inviting contributions lists 6 bullet points as the objectives of CAFCASS for specific comment.

Preamble

The committee may care to note that the Association for Shared Parenting(ASP) has had recent significant involvement with the LCD’s department. ASP was invited to send a delegate to the deliberations in 2000/1 leading to the formation of CAFCASS.

We have decided to forward, as part of this contribution an updated copy of a document entitled:

‘The Need for Guidelines’. The original document was produced for the earlier pre-CAFCASS discussions.

This paper introduces the reader to ASP and sets down our concerns at the time, together with some recommendations for the then to be - new service.

Some two years have now elapsed since CAFCASS emerged from that consultation process.

(For the following comment to be useful we would ask that the ‘Guidelines’ paper be read first.)

Since then it would be fair to say that in the experience of ASP some improvement in some areas can be detected.

       -       Consultation meetings with ‘stakeholders’ have been held and attended by ASP.

-           The results of such consultations have been collated and distributed.

-           Anecdotal evidence from the ASP Helpline suggests that some geographical offices are        

adopting a more common sense approach to their work in contrast to the clutter of   irrelevant issues that permeated the old Welfare Reports.

-           The same patchcy evidence shows that some areas are now willing to investigate the

       underlying motives and energy sources driving protracted disputes.    

-           Some cases report that CAFCASS are adopting their new duty to ‘SUPPORT’ in an effort to

keep the cases out of the court system altogether.

These changes are wholly welcomed by ASP. Additionally, the arrival of a Chairman who brings with him valuable experience from previous work completely unrelated to the old Probation Service is possibly the single best hope for reform of the, some might say, polluted ethos of the old welfare service.

However, many causes for concern remain:

-           ASP is still not sure if a coherent complaints policy exists. We still receive reports that

stakeholders who are dissatisfied with any aspect of the CAFCASS report are referred to

an endless loop.  CAFCASS say ‘raise your concerns in court’ and the courts say ‘you should have raised your concerns with CAFCASS’.

-           There is no evidence that the concerns raised in the recent consultations with stakeholders have been addressed.

-           There is direct evidence of continued resentment by CAFCASS staff at the implications of 

being in the new service in terms of their loss of branch autonomy.

-           We have evidence of reports being submitted which display breath-taking incompetence and frankly ludicrous recommendations. We will give the committee a real example:

‘ …. mother believed that father was feeding his child poisoned crisps at a contact centre. She asserted that her ex mother-in-law had tried to poison her earlier. She asserted that the staff at the contact centre were ganging-up on her and in league with the father.

The subsequent report ignored any possibility that clinical illness may be present. Instead it recommended that the judge ascertain which brand of crisps the mother fed the child and that an order be made that the father was to feed only that brand of crisps at the contact centre after the packet had been inspected by the mother. …. ‘

                Sensibly, the court ignored such nonsense.

THE BULLET POINTS

ASP has discussed the bullet points in detail at a policy meeting. We feel that they are all aspects of   broadly the same aspiration – ‘how is CAFCASS doing?’

The simple reply is   - not too well.

The simple answer lies in CAFCASS working towards excellence. This can be achieved by:

1. THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW QUALIFICATION and CONTINUED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

The work of CAFCASS is not yet a recognised profession. It should be. The earlier ‘Users Group’ at the LCD was told of exploratory discussions with several universities to create a new qualification suitable for the new service. Such a qualification would include elements of social work, counselling, family therapy, management techniques, psychology, law and more, all vital to equip officers with the qualifications necessary to the effective delivery of their service.

We have heard no more. As long as the present situation pertains of a rag-bag assortment of staff holding a rag-bag assortment of qualifications (if any) then no effective service delivery will be possible. Low staff morale will continue to deliver a low grade service.

Solicitors and barristers have to be rigorously qualified. CAFCASS officers do not. Most cases turn on the recommendations of the CAFCASS officer. The court process is as strong as its weakest link. As things are therefore, solicitors, barristers and indeed the judiciary can well be guided by buggins.

A wholly remarkable state of affairs. Perpetuated in part because family proceedings are in private and in part because if the judiciary declare the emperor to be naked the system will fall like a house of cards.

That courts need ‘ears and eyes’ to investigate and report is inarguable. That such a vital role was ever entrusted to the probation service defies belief. That this lacuna was recognised  and reform instigated  will be to the everlasting credit of the government/LCD. That the process of reform is still in the early stages must be recognised – there is much work to do.

2.  ROBUST  MANAGEMENT

ASP understands that welding the old disparate offices and services into a unified service has proved far more difficult that was ever envisaged. We have a genuine sympathy and understanding of those difficulties. We believe that the worst may now be over. The time is therefore exactly right for further reform. Robust management is necessary coupled with the raising staff morale. This is best achieved by raising the standard of CAFCASS officers to a professional level.

3. CONTINUED STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

A significant conclusion reached towards the end of the earlier pre-CAFCASS discussions was the desirability of creating a forum for the continued input from stakeholders. With respect to the present committee of inquiry it could be argued that the inquiry is undertaking a broadly similar task to the sort of ‘over the shoulder’ role of a continued User Group.

The disappearance of the notion of a continued User Group input has been greatly missed. CAFCASS is involved on a daily basis with the children of the stakeholders. Stakeholders want excellent service and by virtue of the fact that an inquiry has been commissioned – so do the committee members.

Establishment of such a User Group would be akin to the ‘tail of a kite’ helping to keep the new service on course and serve also to act as a permanent committee of enquiry. 

SUMMARY

 The six bullet points can be viewed as being elements of one question – how is CAFCASS performing?

The answer to all points can be summarised as:

Early difficulties hopefully over, some possible improvement in evidence but  a long way to go before the service is cost effective through becoming a profession in its own right, under robust management with the whole willing to accept ongoing scrutiny of a continued User Group role.

POINT 1        

The term ‘welfare’ has never been defined. In practice it will mean anything the officer or the court declares it to be. Thus everything uttered by the officer or the court is in the best interest of the child.

This can include urging the court to order a child be fed a particular brand of crisps.

Point one will be achieved only through upgrading CAFCASS to the status of a profession.

POINT 2

This is achieved in commercial circles by a process of constant self-examination. This in turn is achieved through robust management techniques helped by over the shoulder input from non-executive directors. The equivalent in CAFCASS would be a continued role for a Users Group. It will not be achieved through one off inquiries such as this – welcome as they are.

POINT 3

It is arguable that the present lack of objective professionalism produces work which is partly responsible for some cases returning to court repeatedly. (CAFCASS will be able to advise the committee of inquiry as to the cost per report.) Value for money will best be achieved via a professional and well managed service.

POINT 4

This is the same question as point 2.

POINT 5

This point is half the answer to the committee of inquiry and has been expanded above.

POINT 6

This is the other half of the answer. Robust management will ensure that a professional service is at the core of delivering Government agenda.

*****************************************************

Finally, ASP would wish to place on record that over its nine years of operation many instances of commendable work by individual officers have also been apparent.

ASP would like to record its gratitude at being invited to comment. If we can assist in any further way please contact us.