CAFCASS

[TallulahBellz]

I am starting a campaign, in conjunction with other parents, who have or who still have involvement with Cafcass.

The head of Cafcass, Anthony Douglas, believes that children are capable of knowing what is best for them from the age of 7. In reality this means that Cafcass officers ask children what they want and then make recommendations that the children have asked for. No account is taken that the parent with care may be coercing (at best) or indoctrinating (at worst) the children to say certain things, ie I don't want to see Mum/Dad anymore.

Our campaign is:

1. To raise awareness of this within the government;
2. To raise awareness of this within society at large;
3. To put pressure on the government to replace Anthony Douglas with somebody with a more common-sense knowledge of children;
4. To ask the government to force retrospective reviews of cases where children have been removed from their mother's care and placed in the father's care, despite there being serious allegations of abuse by the father (this is currently what happens when a mother refuses to force her children to see an abusive father) with a view to the children being returned to their mother's care;
5. To reduce the power that Cafcass have in family courts - at the moment no matter what, the Cafcass worker is believed above the non-resident parent and the Judge will always make an order supporting the cafcass recommendations. Most Judges don't even take any active part in the proceedings, they simply rubber stamp the cafcass recommendations.

This may seem like big aims, and it is, but it is what is urgently needed to stop more and more children being needlessly traumatised by being ripped from the care of their mother at moments notice (literally), and in some cases never seeing their mother again.

We hope to have some well known names to support our campaign, but we need as many families who are affected by Cafcass to come forward and join the campaign. Without real people and their real stories this will fail. We also need real examples to take to government to show them the extent of the problem.

Thanks for reading this and get in touch through MN to get involved.

I should have also said, that we are looking for backing from organisations like MN so would welcome MN picking up this campaign and running with it!

Thanks.

I am professionally linked with workers within CAFCASS, and can state that the premise that CAFCASS workers simply take what the child{ren}stated wishes are and provide a recommendation refelcting these is utter tosh.They take a mass of evidences from a whole variety of sources before making any recommendation to anyone.

I am aware that the family courts division is much less than perfect but a campaign based on this statement is misguided.

I am hoping and assuming MN would be politely recognising your strong feelings about these issues, but would resist getting involved with it.

Number 4 seems sexist and a bit judgemental. If there were serious allegations of abuse by the father there would usually have been a 'finding of fact' to decide the outcomes of these alleged allegations.

Very sexist!!!

Why would mumsnet do a campaign like this??? It's hardly everyones experience of CAFCASS is it??!

Dear lord....... You get a couple of campaigns from mumsnet making headline news then you get everyone jumping on the bandwagon expecting support!!!!

Pan - you may be professionally connect with Cafcass, which means you do not see them from a client point of view. The details of this campaign have not been put together from a single case, but from multiple cases where these things have happened.

From my own experience they do not 'take a whole mass of evidence from a variety of sources' - they see the children, talk to the parents - end of. Sometimes they commission a report from a psychologist or psychiatrist, these are usually about the parents and say that one parent (usually the one with care at the start of the case) has a personality disorder, that puts the children at risk of emotional abuse, when there is not one shred of evidence that the children are anything other than well balanced and secure. They then use this to remove the children from that parents care into the other parent's care, who has often been accused of some kind of abuse towards the children in the past.

JBellingham - The family court and cafcass don't want to know about father abusers - the whole ethos has changed because of the fathers for justice campaigns, but it has gone too far the other way and is skewed prejudicially against the mother.

Do any of you think that a child of 7 is best placed to know what it's own best interests are best served by?

I think you may be letting personal experience cloud your perception of the process. I have experience of CAFCASS that is almost diametrically opposed to your experience.

A campaign against CAFCASS by mumsnet in favour of one side of a complicated process is not viable, otherwise people will seek a campaign against CAFCASS for the other side. I am not a CAFCASS apologiser, but they do have a difficult job to do, often between two parents who hold fast to views that are unchangeable. When one does not get what they want they are aggrieved. Mumsnet should not campaign for one slighted parent against another.

Could you please explain who is involved in your campaign already?

You say there has been a skewing of opinion because of Fathers4Justice. I always thought F4J were extraordinarily useless at proving they were anything other than nutjobs

hamstersarsehole - F4J are nutjobs to ordinary people. However, they now receive government funding - yes you did read that right! The government has been highjacked by their campaign and policy within cafcass has changed in light of their campaigns. In fairness, it was probably the previous government that changed the policy, not the current one. But the fact remains that cafcass attitudes are skewed. We're not saying it's the fault of individual people who work within cafcass, just that the policy is wrong. There is no commonsense used, sticking to the rules laid down is all they focus on. That in itself is wrong.

JBelingham - a finding of fact hearing was scheduled in one case, with a time of 2 days. When it came to it the Judge, without hearing any evidence from the parties, despite the existence of police evidence, decided in favour of the father - who was the abuser.

Tell me how that is impartial?

F4J have not received government funding. Families Need Fathers have, but they are a very different organisation.

I am not a CAFCASS apologist either, buut your contenrtion that they always find against the PWC is ludicrous. NRPs would, I'm sure, say just the opposite. And I don't agree with them either.

F4J have not received funding from the government.

The issue I have is the wordings in your posts "multiple cases... usually..." as a basis for a subjective campaign. There are no figures available to prove either side of the case as Family Court proceedings are secret. No one knows how many cases go one way, how many go another. Therefore why should Mumsnet wade in on one side of a complicated and un-winnable campaign?

you have lost all credibility with this comment
Sometimes they commission a report from a psychologist or psychiatrist, these are usually about the parents and say that one parent (usually the one with care at the start of the case) has a personality disorder

If you have had bad ecxperiences, then seek legal help and try and sort it out, but your "campaign" em...

You really are not making any case for a campaign, you just sound really bitter and ill informed. I am involved with CAFCASS,it has not been a pleasant experience with an ex who is mentally ill. Clearly from my point of view this is obvious, but they have been very thorough with med, records etc and we are having a finding of fact case (although we have had to wait another 7 months for a court date)- it has all been a very difficult process but i do think eventually the truth will out and they have for the most part tried to do their best in a dreadful situation.

fathers4justice have funding from government??

really.....prove this please??

perhaps MORE CAFCASS officers would be better rather than this....what is it?? ....a campaign to place more work on their shoulders/stretch them further?

age 7?? this is standard is it? or a case you 'know of'.....cos MY 7 year old wasn't listened too,or even my 11 yr old.....just the teens,same for most i know

looking forward to seeing the new f4j costumes they must be having made up as they now apparently have funding

Ongakgak - how have we lost credibility with this statement? You have not heard the stories we have heard from parents at their wits end because this very thing has happened to them. Try not to pre-judge people on what you don't know about.

Tiffany - There have been multiple cases reported to us where children as young as 7 have been quoted in reports, and recommendations made in line with those quotations.

Obviously there is going to be good and bad in all organisations. Some people - the lucky few - are going to get a conscientious cafcas officer who also exercises some common sense, sadly this is not the case for the majority.

How can you say "this is not the case for the majority"?

At best you are going to get 50% of parents to agree with you that their CAFCASS decision is wrong. What figures have you got to back this up?

I see no basis for MN to run a campaign. I am sorry that you feel hard done to by CAFCASS but you are not being objective. I have experience of a 7 yr old's views not being taken as seriously as a teenager's. So it appears has ILTiff, so from a straw poll of this thread you are down 2 to 1.

Show some need and numbers for this campaign. I am pretty sure my experience of CAFCASS is absolutely the opposite of yours yet I do not feel the need to have a counter campaign.

This is not a MN campaign issue it is an issue for you and your legal advisors.

That's just it op it is all anecdotal stories you are hearing.

I simply do not believe that if a psych report is commissioned the results states that one parent has a personality disorder. It is just a ludicrous thing to claim! What is it based on-statistics please?

me neither

I will join the campaign. Anthony Douglas should be replaced without delay. He is a loony. He boasts, repeatedly, that he has regular meetings with fathers' groups. Never, ever mentioned that he has met with mother's groups, family groups or parent groups. In our Cafcass office i waited 20mins in the waiting room. Dominated by posters depicting men as victims of violence, worn down by domestic drudgery and child care. No leaflets, posters about famillies, parents and the word mum is nowhere to be seen. Fathers, fathers all over the walls.

All of these men banging on that ' i just want to see my children'. They don't. But, apparently the more contact a father has the better he comes out in financial settlement. Once he has his money doesn't worry so much about contact!

I have experience of 3 Cafcass officers. 2 did their job. 1 was a total woman hater. He was asked by the judge to report on whether father should see children on a weekday after school. Nothing else. I was expecting half of a page agreeing that they should as i know that Cafcass' only exists for father's benefit. Officer interviewed father several times. Interviewed children, (5, 7 and 9yrs), for 30mins.I was not interviewed at all. Caffcass officer gave report to court stating that i had been interviewed. He wrote 7 pages on how my children hated me and father should have 50/50 residency!! I had a heart attack when i read that report. Ex doesn't want them 2 nts at weekends, just 1. Why would he have shared care?

I complained. Manager replied agreeing that i had not been interviewed and the report was biased against me. Judge totally disinterested in the fact that the guy lied.

I complained to GSCC, social worker registering authority. That wiped the smile off the creep's face. Although they didn't do anything either. Everyone has a 'get out' clause when matters are going through the court.

Cafcass is a loaded gun against the mother. i know someone else that this man was allocated too, again, he tried to completely destroy the mother.

There is a idea that men get a better financial settlement the more contact they are given. Shared residence is all the rage in the courts, sounds fair on the parents but what a rubbish deal for the child. Men are then not required to pay maintenance.

If it helps for anyone to see my complaint or the apology I am happy to oblige.

Agree with ongakgak, what a ridiculous statement about personality disorder diagnosis. Children of people diagnosed with personality disorders are not automatically assumed to be at risk of abuse, I find that statement to be offensive and stigmatising.

mississippii - The CAFCASS waiting room I have waited in had one small poster for 'families need fathers', a few for women's groups and loads for childrens groups. Mainly it was decorated by pictures created by the children who have waited in that room. Your waiting room sounds either unlikely or exceptional.

"All of these men banging on that ' i just want to see my children'. They don't"
Thos evil bastards going through long, emotional and expensive procedures when they don't want to see their children at all, they just want to save a tenner a month. Sounds like a good plan.

"CAFCASS is a loaded gun against the mother" I think you would find everyone on the downside of a CAFCASS report, male or female, thinks they are against them.

The desire for this campaign is driven by personal emotions and not factual reality.

This is a very valid campaign. The custody of a child being transfered to an abuser happens not infrequently. It is so well known that it has a name - Domestic Violence by Proxy. This is where the abuser makes sure the child agrees they want to live with the abuser to avoid punishment, they are told their mother doesn't love them, etc, etc

The problem is that abused women do not present well in court and, if they are ill, this is usually a result of the abuse! Abusive men usually have the better solicitor (cos they can pay!) and there are many websites teaching abusers how to gain custody.

Cafcass are overworked and do not have accountability for their actions. I have also been told by a Cafcass service manager that they are 'not a private detective agency' and that their brief is to be 'minimally invasive'.

Women are warned not to bring up domestic abuse because it makes them look 'hostile'.

And, yes FNF get government funding, it is in their published accounts. They seem to be dictating policy to this government and Cafcass meet with them to avoid harassment and intimidation, they don't seem to understand that these are the same tactics used against women. FNF also have convicted abusers working for them at the highest levels, even though they deny this!

No one said FNF do not get funding.

Ladyclare - you seriously want Mumsnet to start a campaign that says something like
"mumsnet is against parents who the court and CAFCASS agree should have residency because the other parent thinks the child's views have been given too much weight"?
Or
"mumsnet is against parents who the court and CAFCASS agree should have residency because the other parent thinks the child's views have not been given too much weight"?

Or do you actually want a campaign against fathers with residence?