Cafcass Given 95% “Bad” Rating On Trustpilot

29 Monday Jun 2020

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, Voice of the Child

The children and family court support service was rated “bad” by 95% of reviewers on the consumer site.

Cafcass, which has struggled to shed its reputation as a poor support service for parents and children going through the UK’s family courts, has received a barrage of bad reviews on the consumer review website, Trustpilot.

The reviews began in 2018 and stretch across 18 pages, written by both men and women who have used Cafcass while going through the family courts. The service’s troubled operation has led families across England and wales to nickname the body, Crapcass.

The latest review, left on the site just hours ago, is entitled, “Organisation with a god complex”, and goes on to highlight several concerns with the support service, including limited interview times with children, non-evidence based allegations against parents and concerning interview techniques.

Another reviewer said the service was “extremely dangerous and damaging,” referring to a phenomenon in which some parents who allege abuse find they are accused of parental alienation by Cafcass social workers without any evidence and then have their children removed from their care.

Despite Cafcass receiving an Outstanding rating by Ofsted in 2018, ongoing concerns about the service were raised in Parliament that same year by Jess Phillips MP, who called for a government review of Cafcass after she received 199 pages of testimonials from parents who had been subjected to poor social work assessments.

The call was made during a debate in July 2018, in which she said,

“On the issue of CAFCASS workers receiving appropriate training, I say to the Minister that it is not working. There needs to be a Government review of CAFCASS and the way its workers are interacting with victims, as well as of settings where families go for visits.”

The Trustpilot reviews outline similar experiences from families in both public and private family law cases, with recurring themes of incompetence, falsification of records, lying in court and a disregard for the voice of the child mentioned in several of the comments.

Screenshot 2020-06-29 at 11.31.11

One mother said, “This organisation is a disgrace to our nation. They don’t care about the child’s wishes and they most definitely are NOT the voice of the child. They seem to be the only ones in the social care sector who are Not held accountable for their actions.”

While a father commented, “Dreadful, makes out everyone is up to no good when the reality it’s them who are doing wrong and going unpunished clearly thinking they’re a superior race.”

Another father suggested that Trustpilot had deleted several other negative reviews, raising questions as to the real number of complaints submitted to the site, which may have been removed for falling foul of the site’s posting policies:

“Cafcass were told to leave a meeting with me, my barrister and my domestic abuse worker because she was butting in with completely irrelevant stuff and also told to be quiet by the judge. Even though I gained full living with order for my 2 children, cafcass did everything they could to ruin it. Even told my ex to get a drugs test on me done (my ex is an addict) came back completely clear. Cafcass are crap. If this review is deleted like a lot of other negative cafcass reviews then shame on you trustpilot.”

Many of the headlines on the review site for Cafcass included the phrase, “Not fit for purpose” and adjectives like corrupt, evil and liars.

One reviewer also said she had experienced racism from Cafcass officers, commenting, “This bunch of largely white, middle aged women routinely take the side of abusive men, if challenged, or if found out in a lie or a manipulation they will circle their wagons and protect their own. The last people on their list are the children they are supposed to protect, and routinely fail, with tragic consequences.”

However some parents felt the service had helped.

One mother, who gave the child welfare body an “excellent” rating, said, “Thankfully, after the years of mental abuse, CAFCASS finally saw the real feelings of my children. Many on here have left a negative review because they have been ‘bitten on the backside.’”

A father who also left a five star review on the site explained, “I had to go for a shared arrangements order through the courts as my ex would not allow me to see my son. Cafcass was excellent and treated me with respect and fair and i now see my son all the time.”

Many thanks to Millicent Fawcett on Twitter for alerting us to this development.

Untitled design (5)

Child’s Request To Speak to Judge Ignored In Child Protection Case

10 Monday Jun 2019

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, Voice of the Child

≈ 12 Comments

A case riddled with management errors prevented a child from being able to speak to the judge in her case, a High Court judge said.

Mr Justice MacDonald criticised the child’s guardian and the social services team for acute case management errors which included failing to ensure that one of the children in the case could speak to the judge.

The 2017 case involved three children with permanent leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and whose parents were residing in the United States. The local authority in the case had applied for final care orders for all three children.

The 15- year old girl had asked to meet with the judge so she could speak with him. Confusion around the 2010 guidelines on judges speaking to children led to the child’s guardian failing to notify the judge of the teenager’s request in good time.

The judgment is significant in that it highlights a current gap inside the system: children still do not have the right to speak with family judges overseeing their cases. This oversight makes the current process for discussion discretionary and dependent on whether the judge wishes to engage with the child in the case.

The 2010 guidelines are also unnecessarily narrow and prevent children from talking about their wishes and feelings, or sharing important information with the judge which may have been missed or ignored by child welfare professionals. Currently the only topic of discussion a judge can engage in with a child is how the court process within the context of their case works.

The overall effect sees judges talking “at” children for the most part, rather than allowing for a meaningful two-way discussion.

There is currently no information available on how many judges have spoken to children after a request under the guidelines was made. The number though, is likely to be very small.

Many thanks to Charles Pragnell for alerting us to this case.

Children’s Right To Speak To Judges In Family Cases Shelved Because Of Cost – Former Family Court President

17 Friday May 2019

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, Voice of the Child

≈ 15 Comments

Former President of the Family Division Sir James Munby has said that plans to allow children the right to speak to judges overseeing family cases that involved them had been shelved because “in plain English, it would all cost too much”.

Munby went on to say that “detailed proposals” to implement that right had been drawn up, “but nothing can come into effect without the approval of the minister”.

The revelation comes after this site made a Freedom of Information request asking the government about its promise to give children the right to discuss their wishes and feelings with judges working on child welfare cases.

The request was part of a Researching Reform campaign to establish a legal right for children to have access to their judges in family cases and crucially, to be able to ask any question they wished, as well as share their feelings on the case.

In response to our campaign Sir James Munby who was then President of the Family Division reminded the government that children who wanted to discuss their wishes and feelings with judges should be able to do so.

The Researching Reform campaign to implement children’s right to speak to judges was then picked up by the BBC who interviewed us on the background to the government’s pledge and the reasons behind the failure to implement the right.

Munby made the comments about children’s voices inside the family courts to the BBC this week.

This International Children’s Day, Get The Government To Act.

20 Tuesday Nov 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, Voice of the Child

≈ 2 Comments

November 20th is International Children’s Day, an annual event launched to celebrate children, and to highlight the difficulties they face in today’s world.

This year, Researching Reform has chosen to honour Children’s Day by asking the UK government to address three pressing issues affecting children in care:

1. Give all children engaged in child welfare proceedings an automatic right to speak to the judges overseeing their cases.

Researching Reform started campaigning for this right in 2014, after the government failed to make good on its promise to give children going through the family courts the chance to speak to judges about their cases. When we made a Freedom Of Information request in 2017 to find out what had happened to the plans, we discovered that the Ministry of Justice never enacted the policy. After writing an article for Lexis Nexis on the findings, we were then contacted by the BBC, who interviewed us about our Voice of the Child campaign. It’s very simple – if a court is meant to place a child’s best interests at the heart of every decision it makes, and a child wants to share their point of view with a judge, that request should never be denied.

2. End Forced Adoption in the UK and replace it with consensual adoption instead.

There’s a reason most countries around the world don’t use forced adoption. The practice causes significant distress, re-traumatises already vulnerable parents and children, and is completely unnecessary. If you feel the way we do, please sign our petition.

3. Stop councils advertising children online for adoption and fostering purposes.

It’s illegal, it’s dangerous and it doesn’t actually work. That’s our take on the routine marketing of babies and children by councils and agencies looking to put children up for adoption or fostering placements. It seems to be the view of most people we asked on Twitter, as well. If you’d like to find out more about why the practice is breaking the law, our article on the subject offers more information. If you’re a smarty pants and you already know, skip a step and sign our petition asking the government to stop the practice.

While there’s a great deal more that needs to be done, these issues are a good place to start. We know the government is listening. And the public is watching you.

interesting Things (1)

Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform, social work, Voice of the Child

≈ 23 Comments

Alarming reports of councils sidestepping parental consent for Section 20 living arrangements have surfaced this week on Facebook, after the highest court in the land ruled that failing to get parents’ consent could lead to local authorities being sued for breaches under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for private and family life.

Section 20 agreements allow councils to house children in temporary accommodation when parents are unable to care for their children. The agreements are intended to be short term, and voluntary, meaning that children can leave local authority accommodation under these arrangements at any time and without notice.

Children who are considered Fraser Competent, or mature enough to make decisions, can arrange accommodation under Section 20 agreements without parental involvement. The original thinking behind the policy was to ensure that children who felt unsafe or vulnerable in their home environments could reach out to councils for protection or respite.

This caveat now appears to be being abused by local authorities, who are turning to children to secure these agreements when parents refuse to accept the arrangements offered.

Whilst the Supreme Court made it clear last month that parents must be informed about their rights under Section 20, the judges did not cover the need to fully inform children who personally seek out temporary council accommodation, or are approached by councils looking to create such an agreement, and ensure that they fully understand the terms of the agreement, too.

Comments across closed Facebook groups, and text messages this site received, suggest that the practice of targeting children when parents object to a Section 20 arrangement is not new. Several children also posted about their experiences of being coerced into council accommodation, and adoption proceedings. One child told Researching Reform:

“I wish the court had made sure I understood first what was being asked.. which I didn’t at the time. I have grown up to realise as a young adult that I have missed out on so much. I have lost touch with family members as a result, and this concerns me for my health because I lost one of my parents when they were very young. I would like to be able to understand their medical history to see if I can alleviate my own health worries but have nowhere to start.”

Section 20 arrangements came to the mainstream media’s attention last year after it was revealed that the agreements were being used by councils to remove children from their parents with a view to putting them up for adoption, which is illegal.

Petition Calls On Government To Intervene In Family Courts

25 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Family Law, petition, Researching Reform, Voice of the Child

≈ 20 Comments

A petition created by “I Want My Mummy” (IWMM), a not for profit organisation providing support for vulnerable people and survivors of abuse is calling on the government to open up the Family Courts.

Often accused of being shrouded in secrecy, the Family Courts have been heavily criticised over the last decade for its failure to strike the right balance between protecting families’ and children’s rights as they go through these courts, and the appropriate level of accountability for poor practice and wrongdoing inside the system.

IWMM’s Executive Director Zoe Dronfield set up the petition, which has garnered nearly 3,000 signatures. The petition sets out ten recommendations which it invites the government to take up:

Recommendation 1: Open the civil family court to scrutiny and allow an independent third party ombudsman to investigate claims of unjust rulings.

Recommendation 2: Family court to be evidential to include a domestic violence or victim advocate for survivors including child survivors.

Recommendation 3: The Government to ensure that there is independent follow-up after a court ruling to ensure that it was successful. To be measured by improved experiences for the family.

Recommendation 4: The Government to consider linking criminal and family court proceedings for unified working.

Recommendation 5: The Government to consider creating a new Serial Perpetrator Register which can be accessed by family court for history of domestic abuses.

Recommendation 6: The Government and Ministry of Justice to ensure the adherence to clear and consistent procedure for applications brought to the family court.

Recommendation 7: The Government and Ministry of Justice to ensure DBS checks for all applicants and to be properly considered at the initial and closing stages of applications before the family court.

Recommendation 8: Perjury in the family court to be thoroughly investigated and consistently treated as a criminal offence.

Recommendation 9: The Government to consider that gagging orders do not resolve lack of safe transparency and scrutiny. They often silence the victim of injustice.

Recommendation 10: CAFCASS reporters and officials, social workers and other court-appointed experts be held accountable for errors and misleading information.

IWMM has Researching Reform’s full support on this petition, and the recommendations it sets out. If you’d like to sign the petition, you can do so here.

Many thanks to Zoe for getting in touch and sharing the petition with us.

President Calls For Investigation Into Covert Recordings In Family Court Cases

31 Tuesday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in Family Law, Researching Reform, Voice of the Child

≈ 8 Comments

The President Of The Family Division has called on the Family Justice Council to look into the use of audio and video recordings obtained by parties going through the family courts. Sir James Munby made the request in a judgment published on 18th October.

The case before Munby was an appeal which threw up the issue of covert recordings used within the family courts, their admissibility and the lack of guidance in this area for family professionals and the parties themselves. Parties in family court cases sometimes record events or conversations in secret, to show wrongdoing when there is no other way of proving fault.

Key parts of the judgment are added below:

“The courts have had to grapple with the legal and procedural issues generated by the stool-pigeon, the eavesdropper and the concealed observer since time immemorial. Since the second half of the nineteenth century the courts have had to grapple, and keep up, with the legal and procedural issues generated by the invention of technologies for the audio or visual recording of events.

On one level there is nothing very new about this. Thus, the covert filming or video-recording of personal injury or benefits claimants suspected of fraud has been an established and acceptable practice for many years. But in the family courts the issue has become much more pressing in recent years.
There are, I suspect, two reasons for this. One is the ever increasing sophistication and miniaturisation and at the same time ever decreasing cost of modern recording equipment. For anyone possessed of a smartphone or similar piece of ‘kit’, surreptitious audio recording or filming of events is child’s play.

The other, I fear, has to do with the widespread distrust in too many quarters of the competence or even the integrity of the family justice system and of the professionals involved in it. Here, of course, it is the existence of the mindset rather than its foundation in reality which is the driving force. But it does give rise to important questions of public policy.

That said, it needs to be accepted, with honesty and candour, that there have been in recent years in the family courts shocking examples of professional malpractice which have been established only because of the covert recording of the relevant individual.
It is important to distinguish between open recording and covert recording. In the nature of things, it is the latter which is more problematic. Without seeking to establish a complete taxonomy, there are at a least three categories of covert recording, each of which may raise a variety of different issues: covert recording of children, covert recording of other family members, and covert recording of professionals.
Whatever the nature of the recording, a number of issues are likely to arise.

Again without any pretence to completeness it is obvious that questions may arise as to: (i) the lawfulness of what has been done;

(ii) best practice outside the court room as it were; (iii) the admissibility of the recording in evidence; and

(iv) a variety of other evidential and practice issues (for example, as to how the recording is to be put in evidence, problems in relation to sound and picture quality, and, in particular, disputes as to authenticity – who are the people who can be heard or seen on the recording, has the recording been edited or ‘cut and spliced’? – which may necessitate calling expert evidence).

Furthermore, in relation to all this it may be important to identify who is doing the recording and why. Covert surveillance and recording by the police and other agencies, including the Security Service, which in current conditions not infrequently impinges upon the family courts, is one thing. Covert surveillance and recording by others may – I put the point no higher, it being a matter for another day – raise rather different issues.

I draw attention to these matters to show that covert recording in the context of the family courts potentially involves a myriad of issues, very few of which, despite all the judgments to which I have referred, have, even now, been systematically considered either at first instance or in this court.

I propose therefore, as a first step, to invite the Family Justice Council, which as a multi-disciplinary body is particularly suited to undertake the task, to consider the whole question of covert recording from a multi-disciplinary viewpoint.”

Using his signature blend of diplomacy (make of that what you will), Munby uses the public judgment once more to raise awareness of problems inside the system and invite investigation. Researching Reform hopes that when the time comes, parents, researchers, and activists will all contribute to the consultation. We most certainly will.

recorded-speech