CAFCASS: A Safeguarding Concern?
TW/ Abuse
Separation and divorce are becoming more common in the United Kingdom. More children face decisions by the court on where they will reside and who they will see when.
Between 2011 and 2020, there were 421,561 children whose parents applied for a child arrangements order to achieve contact. How reliable is the court in making decisions about a child's future, particularly in cases where abusive allegations are concerned?
It is common practice to allocate a CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) worker to cases when safeguarding concerns are disclosed, or the case has complex difficulties. The officer's role is to ensure that the voice of the child is heard and their best interests are followed.
According to a webinar in 2017, Anthony Douglas, the Chief Executive of CAFCASS until 2018, said that parental alienation affects around 80% of the most difficult cases in family courts. Cafcass defines parental alienation as:
“when a child’s resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent”.
However, this appears to be considered a tool to stop protective parents from safeguarding their children when the child does not wish to see the non-resident parent. Cafcass alleged parental alienation, unless there is unquestionable evidence of abuse. Voice for the child, and other researchers, is concerned that the role of CAFCAS no longer involves being a voice for the child and advocating their wishes and feelings. They believe that encouraging contact is the main target, ignoring the autonomy of the children and invalidating their feelings.
There are many reasons why a child may not disclose abuse but state that they do not wish to see the parent. One of these reasons is the age of the child. According to The Crime Survey for England and Wales, many child abuse cases remain hidden, and around one in seven have never told anyone what has happened to them. Further to this: 8.5 million people had experienced emotional, physical, sexual abuse or witnessed domestic violence before they were 16 years old.
NAPAC also cites that one in three children who are abused never tell anyone and that some of the children who did disclose were either ignored or had no action taken.
According to research by the NSPCC, it takes an average of seven years for a child to disclose abuse. If they were younger when it started then it can take longer. They found that children may try to let someone know but that disclosure is rarely straight forward.
Reasons could be that the child is unaware that what is happening them is not normal. It could be because they do not have the words to tell or it could because they feel ashamed or guilty.
The possibility of working out which of the 80% of cases were abuse and which were alienation is an impossible task for a court social worker. Contrary to ideas, trauma therapists state that children will provide very few clues, and will often lie to protect the abusive parent. Unless there are physical injuries, it usually takes a highly skilled and experienced therapist to uncover definite signs of abuse.
On occasion, there are signs that a child has been a victim of trauma. A case study of Laura and her family can collaborate that the symptoms of her daughter's trauma were available to the CAFCASS worker that was involved with her family. The practitioner neither recognised the signs nor took any notice when informed of them. Laura's child displayed 7 out of 16 trauma signs and symptoms and 25 out of 37 signs of disruption or impairment to development.
At seven years old, she could not articulate the reasons behind her anxious, impulsive, and hyperactive behaviour. Laura informed the worker of the events that she had witnessed, of the small snippets of information that she was given from her daughter and a history of previous harms. She informed him of the stomach aches, the night incontinence only before going to her fathers, and the hysterical tears. The daughter told the worker that she wanted to see her father if mum was there and that if she asked mum to make contact stop, mum would stop it, when asked why she could not say.
The report that was given to the court from CAFCASS stated that the daughter wished to see her dad, and therefore there should be a court order in place for regular, unsupervised and weeklong contact, with enforcement measures if Laura did not comply.
From the available information, CAFCASS does not train their workers in trauma and would be unable to assess whether the child showed signs. Training is provided for CAFCASS employees regarding parental alienation. Out of 1407 employees, only 32 practitioners had completed the ‘knowledge bite training' in the two years that it had been available.
Four years after CAFCASS involvement, Laura’s daughter started visiting mental health services due to severe trauma symptoms and low self-esteem. Within weeks of building a relationship, the daughter disclosed events that had happened while in contact with the non-resident parent. These were occurrences before and after the divorce of her parents.
Many of which Cafcass could have prevented if they had listened to the mother instead of deciding that parental alienation was the issue.
It appears that their role has become ensuring contact goes ahead rather than the interests of the child. Basing their recommendations on instinct following a short telephone call or visit rather than training. Most importantly, the children’s wishes are ignored, and the feelings disregarded while safeguarding issues continue without intervention.
As the CAFCASS officer does not appear before the judge; nor are they questioned about the information they provide, there is no accountability.
CAFCASS has explained that their job is merely to make recommendations.
“The court will make the final decision”.
Very few organisations, families or services agree that this is the case. Family Court Support state that
“The document they produce carries a great deal of weight with the Family Court”.
Further to this, Stephens-Scown provide the case of Re W (Residence) [1999] where the importance of the officer’s role was emphasised
"Judges are hugely dependent upon the contribution that can be made by the welfare officer, who has the opportunity to visit the home and to see the grown-ups and the children in much less artificial circumstances than the judge can ever do”.
With these points in mind, should another agency be charged with providing the court with the wishes and feelings of the child? Are CAFCASS sufficiently trained, involved in the child’s life long enough, or open to the possibility that the parent may know their child best? Are they there for the child as an individual or following a scripted checklist where parental alienation is the answer to everything?
Written by Janine S White
I like to support society to be more accepting and understanding of differences. If I can make just one person more aware of the pain that can be caused by inequality, prejudgement and a lack of knowledge, then I have succeeded.
Recipes
