Can anyone help decode this CAFCASS report? It sounds contradictory to me

[historiccastles]

I don't want to give too many revealing details but I'm supporting my partner in a family court case against his ex-wife. The child has made allegations of abuse by his stepfather. The ex-wife denies them. Since the allegations were made the child has lived full time with his dad. Previously it was 50-50.

We've had one directions hearing which gave interim order directing child to stay with dad and commissioned CAFCASS report and some other reports.

Second directions hearing coming up. CAFCASS report just landed. It lists allegations, says mum disputes them then says:

• appears suitable for conciliation at next hearing (how? either mum would have to take back her denial or dad would have to say child lying)
• court may wish to commission section 7 report and hold fact finding hearing

Surely the two are mutually exclusive so contradictory? And how could it possibly be conciliated at next hearing unless one parent changes position?

I presume you're talking about the cafcass safeguarding letter? At this point they're allegations. The investigative stage happens at fact finding and section 7.
What did cafcass say about the actual allegations, are there any basis or evidence?

There was no comment on whether there is a basis for them. They were just stated as allegations (which they are until proven) and then it says appears suitable for conciliation or court may want Section 7/factfinding.

There has been a S47 investigation which we haven't seen the report from. The investigation was closed as child currently safe with dad but we know child repeated the allegations to police and SW during a formal interview. They didn't seem to feel the need to determine if the allegations were true and just said he had to go to court.

What I don't understand is how the officer can think it can be resolved at next hearing without a finding being made about whether the allegations are founded.

I think its probably giving the court the option to explore if both parents are amenable to the conciliation. Clearly that won't be the case so your partners barrister can state that at the start of the next hearing. Your partner can say hes in agreement to a fact finding and section 7.

I suspect it’s raising the possibility of the mother agreeing to preserve the status quo indefinitely. That can only be done with adequate safeguards in place.

I would expect the potential conciliation to come from mum agreeing for child to stay with dad, and continue whatever the current contract arrangements are, if not it will have to go to s7/fact finding.

Okay that's reassuring, because I can't see a way out of this where the child stays safe unless it's either back to shared care but mum has a place for the child to stay where stepdad isn't, or the court orders he lives with dad and sees mum away from her home.

As per pp's my interpretation from what you have posted is that if the parents can come to an arrangement/agreement (in this situation the child remaining with the father or an alternative that is acceptable such as the step father moves out and guarantees for him not to have contact for example) then a S7/FF would be the recommended next step.

I think it's wise to explore conciliatory approaches even if you expect them to be rejected to demonstrate to the court your partner has tried to avoid a S7/FF.

Worth remembering that a FF might prove inconclusive...

That can complicate matters and result in contact arrangements that are less stringent than your partner might be comfortable with.

In which case agreeing an arrangement without S7/FF that is acceptable to your partner might be a better outcome.

If the ex breaks this you can then look at s7 as a next step (basically keep you power dry).

I agree with pp. You're actually at more danger if you go towards a FF and Section 7...the court takes the power out of your hands then..
Courts like children to have a relationship with both parents so you may find its in your partners best interests to negotiate with the mother.

Absolutely. The current MO (thanks to the traction of attachment theory) is that contact with parents is in a child's best interests.

This can result in court ordered contact arrangements that seem to fly in the face of basic safeguarding on occasion.

Don't assume a S7/FF will give you the outcome you think is appropriate/sensible.

Inconclusive FF is a nightmare to navigate.

Better to leverage the possibility of proceeding to S7/FF to come to an agreement to keep the child with you partner and have maternal contact ensuring the step parent is not there is a better option.

Also consider how the courts will perceive the mother refusing to make concessions to favour her child over her partner (poorly).

I didn't know that was even possible so it's useful to know. I'm honestly astounded at how no-one seems to really care if the allegations are true, police/social care just want it to go to court so they don't have to deal with it and court just want parents to agree.

My partner would much prefer to go back to 50-50 care as he thinks it's better for the child but only if stepdad is not in his mum's house when child is there.

In his mum's shoes, I'd be either ending the relationship because even if I didn't believe the allegations, I'd be seeing my child is clearly unhappy, or at least I'd be arranging somewhere else I could have the child on my weeks.

We think there's domestic abuse from what child has said. She denies it all and says my partner just wants to take child away from her.

It's very difficult. At one point she said she'd just make sure stepdad wouldn't look after him. I don't think that's workable but maybe my partner should explore what she means (if it's still on the table).