[Solved] Cafcass gave poor service to father who did not have direct contact with kids

quite useful to know. if anyone thinks cafcass have acted unjustly, they could get the Parliamentary Ombudsman to look into it:

Mr K complained about how the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) handled his case. He said that its reports were biased, staff did not communicate with him properly, and Cafcass failed to deliver letters and cards he sent to his children, despite being ordered to do so by the court.

What happened

In late 2010 the court ordered Cafcass to submit a report on Mr K's contact with his children. It was asked to do this by spring of 2011, but Cafcass did not do this until eight months later.

At a hearing shortly afterwards, the court ordered Cafcass to pass on letters and cards from Mr K to his children, but Cafcass refused to pass on Mr K's first letter as it said some of the content was inappropriate. At the end of 2011 Cafcass closed Mr K's case but it was still responsible for forwarding Mr K's letters to his children. However, when Mr K gave them subsequent letters and cards it did not pass them on, and did not notify him of this.

In summer 2013 the court ordered Cafcass to submit a further report within three months, but it did not do this until the beginning of 2014. At a hearing at that time the court appointed a guardian from the National Youth Advocacy Service to take responsibility for the children, and the case was closed as there was no further role for Cafcass.

What we found

We partly upheld this case. There were serious shortcomings by Cafcass in failing to submit reports with the court in time. However, it was not possible to say with any certainty that if Cafcass had provided the reports to the court sooner, the case would have run a different course.

We considered that Mr K's complaint about Cafcass' reports being biased was a matter to be raised in court, rather than through the complaints procedure.

Cafcass failed to pass on correspondence to Mr K's children. The court had ordered Cafcass to be an intermediary for Mr K's letters to his children and it should have carried on with that role until the court ordered otherwise. In the absence of direct contact with his children, this was an important way for Mr K to stay in touch with them.

Putting it right

Cafcass apologised to Mr K for its failings and poor customer service, and paid him £750 for the distress, upset and frustration this caused.

Health or ParliamentaryParliamentary
Organisations we investigated
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass)

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/how-our-casework-makes-difference/case-summaries/993