Never really sure where to put this thread but here goes.
I had a section 7 report done and I am happy with the recommendations. Basically ex was ordered to attend a perpetrators course but can’t because Covid has suspended them. Cafcass was supposed to report on how he was getting on and include in the section 7, as they have nothing to report on have said they can’t support contact and to stick with indirect till he can get on a course and they can do another report.
They have suggested a hold on the next trail or conclude and he re-apply when he has done the course.
She was a bit odd on how she worded things. She said she can’t comment on the abuse allegations, although judge deemed that he was abusive in previous trial and showed no insight hence the course and section 7. But if they were in fact true it would have cause emotional harm to us all. She then went on to say in his interview he minimised his behaviour. So did she agree with abuse or not, I’m confused? She also used the words parental conflict, which suggests a two way street which it wasn’t, it was abuse.
She also wanted contact to resume for the children’s sake as they want to see there father (they very young) for there identity and emotional well being. But then recommend only indirect as she concerned about his minimising behaviour and risk of further abuse but won’t then make any opinion on the abuse allegations .....
I have to write a statement in response and I don’t know what to say. Only I do support the recommendations. Until he gains some insight he is at risk of continuing.