A family court judge has described the approach taken by a reporter for the Children and Family Court Advisory Service (CAFCASS) as ‘entirely inappropriate’ after she ‘unilaterally chose to depart from the clear court direction’ in her welfare assessment.
In A Father v A Mother His Honour Judge Willans was dealing with proceedings in relation to contact between a father and his child. No findings of fact had been made at an earlier hearing. A CAFCASS report was ordered with a direction that the report, a welfare assessment, must make recommendations on the basis the court had not made findings against the father.
According to the written judgment the CAFCASS reporter instead ‘fundamentally failed to follow the legal principles’ by introducing ‘into their reasoning matters not proven or indeed not subject to fact finding’ and not following the ‘clear direction’ given by the court. She had ‘entirely abdicated the duty placed upon her’, the judgment said.
The reporter ‘unilaterally chose to depart from the clear court direction [and] elevate her own assessment of the disputed allegations over that of the court.’
The judge said that those advising must advise on the basis of the facts as found by the court. It is impermissible for the reporter, expert or agency to proceed otherwise. ‘It is central to the maintenance of the integrity of the fact-finding process that matters not proven or not examined fall outside of the factual matrix when one considers welfare decision making.’
The judge noted the court and parents had waited ‘the best part of six-months for a recommendation from the reporter’. ‘To not receive this after such a period is inexcusable,’ he added.
He said that the reporter’s evidence that her manager had advised her to take the approach she had suggested ‘a systematic rather than personal failure’. The judge ‘will be seeking a response from management as to how they propose to address the issues highlighted in this judgment’.
He added: ‘Frankly I do not want to be confronted by such a scenario again.’ ‘The court cannot and does not allow the parties to set the evidential agenda for a fact-finding.’
On the substance of the case, the judge refused to stop contact, as recommended by CAFCASS, finding to do so would be ‘positively harmful’ to the child.
Source link