A new thread. Topics re. this pernicious not fit for purpose Quango need to remain current and fresh. We have had nonsense and prejudice for 7 years. Currently discussing with MP, GSCC, Cafcass CEO (Douglas) and Ombudsman. Loughton (Sec of State) ignores any letter.
Any constructive help from the West Midlands area will be appreciated.
Observations & Further Complaints?? [How Dare they Complain]
re. Cafcass Inaction, Incompetence, Fobbing off and Buck passing??
It is common knowledge that Cafcass is a failed agency, not ?fit for purpose?. It is facile to claim otherwise.
Cafcass is unable to remedy the ignorance and incompetence of its own staff. They pass the buck to the court, frequently prompting the court to form an adverse opinion of the litigant who dares to speak out. (The related issue where the family court almost invariably - and wrongly - regard ?guardian/cafcass as the font of all wisdom is not examined here.)
The court process is not for argument re. conduct and failings of Cafcass. A quality agency would ensure that all its staff were of adequate social awareness, intelligence, competence and empathy. It also would ensure that no individual projected prejudice or gender bias in any way.
Cafcass possesses no facility to monitor such fundamental requirements.
The court?s sole purpose should be to safeguard children?s wellbeing. Unfortunately and too often the court is relying on an individual whose subjective view of a child?s best interests is prodigiously flawed. And no matter how often the mantra is repeated, the truth is that children suffer whilst Cafcass jobsworths preen their faux gravitas. Year in year out.
Ford possesses insufficient intelligence and awareness; he plainly - as stated - lacks empathy and understanding. He contributes nothing to my child?s wellbeing. My child now refuses to speak to him. It is abhorrent that he is being paid for (and his lawyer) out of public funding and legal aid.
Cafcass outrageously imagine that Ford?s entrenched dogmatism should be examined by the court - more delay, wasting a child?s life - when a skilled agency should provide an adviser with minimal intelligence. (Another related issue that no child should ever be the ?victim? of a jobsworth adversarial process.)
The courts, however flawed and secret, should be for the child and not for Cafcass. Their response is shameful and entirely unacceptable. And it is unacceptable that Tim Loughton contents himself with the superficial view of Cafcass. The public have more intelligence. Cafcass fails children and continues to do so.
For my son and me, Ford exhibits mendacious and manipulative behaviour.
The latter is obviously intent on maintaining his position with ?Cafcass complaints?. He would, wouldn?t he?
Family courts should not be expected to function as apologists for emotionally inept, incompetent social workers.
Why should Cafcass assume that the court is willing to waste its time on them?
Ford is patently not equipped ?to focus upon (my son?s) interests?. He has no idea of my son?s interests, and certainly no idea how to focus on them.
It is disgraceful that such a lamentable man be permitted to mislead the court. Cafcass ?Fobbing Off? department. (We have read Douglas? shaming, indefensible excuses to the parliamentary committee.)
?Malicious and thoughtless?. (Asking did father miss his son?) Upheld complaint. Good of them. Cafcass offer no remedy. Ford is allowed to continue. His appalling behaviour (no ?innocent? remark - I was there; pure incompetence) indicates that he is not sufficiently aware to assist the court; and is certainly in no position to help my child.
Does it occur to anyone that this speaks volumes about this man?s lack of thought processes? His inability to relate to child or adult? (See detailed complaint.)
?Incriminate?. Again, upheld complaint. Cafcass offer no redress. We are not
here for staff training, to benefit Cafcass; we wish to escape the jobsworth adversarial culture by yesterday.
Why is ineptness personified allowed to continue plaguing the public? Who else are Cafcass misleading?
The few members of the public who are aware of the secret court system know full well that ?(my son?s) solicitor? - particularly in private law - is merely an artifice allowing ?guardian cafcass? to ride roughshod over a child and tell him what to think. (That there are ?good? exceptions we accept; however, ?good? we have not seen in our long and drawn out ordeal with Cafcass.)
A public disgrace that money is wasted on a solicitor who only attends to reinforce
prejudice, paranoia and breathtaking social bias.
Passing the buck to the court. Passing the buck to another jobsworth.
Cafcass - a byword for inaction - have not dealt with my complaint in an acceptable manner. They are incapable. (Tim Loughton please note.)
Cafcass falsely claim (fobbing off letter 20/12/11) that ?Milner? spoke with me ?regarding your concerns?. I have never had any conversation with ?Milner?.
My child quite rightly refuses to speak with Ford. Why should he be forced to tolerate Cafcass ineptness? By a publicly funded solicitor?
It is deeply wrong that Cafcass expect the court to waste my son?s time in examining whether or not this man is fit for the purpose. (In real life the secret court more often than not looks after Cafcass whilst Cafcass feeds jobsworth prejudice to the court.)
Ford presents as deficient and socially defunct. He should not be allowed anywhere near my child. We feel degraded.
<span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span><span class="underline">_</span>__
Tomftj
16th January 2012