Cafcass reporter’s failure to follow court direction ‘holed case below the waterline’

In many cases involving disputes between parents over arrangements for their children the court will direct that Cafcass investigate the case and prepare a report for the court, usually giving recommendations as to what orders the court should make.

The court’s direction will set out what it wants Cafcass to do, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.

But in a recent case that took place in the Family Court at West London the Cafcass reporter failed to follow the court’s direction, thereby jeopardising the outcome of the case.

The case concerned a father’s application for contact with his child.

The mother made an allegation of domestic abuse against the father. The court investigated the allegation, but found it not proved.

The court then directed that Cafcass prepare a report. The direction specifically stated that the author of the report must note that the court had not made any findings against the father, and that recommendations should be made on that basis.

However, the Cafcass reporter proceeded on the basis that the mother’s allegation might be true, and on that basis recommended that all contact between the father and the child be ended.

Prior to this, the father had been having supervised contact at a contact centre, and the mother, it seems, may have been open to considering a planned progress of the contact, from supervised to unsupervised. But having seen the report, the mother changed her stance and sought an order for no contact.

This obviously meant that the case would have to progress to a contested final hearing.

Needless to say, the judge took an extremely dim view of the actions of the Cafcass reporter, saying that they “fundamentally holed the case below the waterline making any potential agreement or consensual way forward impossible.”

The Cafcass reporter, he said, had placed herself in the position of the Court as a determiner of fact, in a manner that was wholly outside of the role ascribed to her both by Court directions, and settled procedure.

In the circumstances the judge chose not to follow the recommendation of the Cafcass reporter, considering that to do so would be contrary to the welfare of the child.

He therefore made an order progressing the contact from supervised at the contact centre, to the father ultimately having unsupervised contact for a whole day.

You can read the full report of the case here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Shakirov Albert / Shutterstock.com