Seen but not heard
Children’s voices lost in Cafcass crisis, argues Nagalro's Alison Paddle
Children are the biggest losers from the crisis at Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), according to Time for Children a recent survey of work in public law care proceedings conducted by Nagalro, the professional association for Children’s Guardians, Family Court Advisers and Independent Social Workers. The survey provides a first snapshot of the impact of changes resulting from the President of the Family Division’s Interim Guidance of 30 July 2009 and Cafcass Operating Priorities of August 2009.
Cafcass received an unprecedented 21% increase over three years in its government grant for 2008-11. Despite a fall in care applications in 2008 Cafcass blamed a large rise in proceedings from November 2008 after the Baby Peter case for plunging it into renewed crisis. By August 2009 Anthony Douglas, Cafcass Chief Executive, declared the organisation was only able provide a “safe minimum standard” of work on cases, a concept Nagalro describes as “essentially subjective”. In October 2009 Douglas told The Times that the service was on “an emergency footing”.
Major concerns identified in Nagalro’s survey include the backlog of cases that rapidly developed and led to the widespread introduction of duty systems. Of 300 cases allocated to 73 survey respondents since January 2009, 40% remained unallocated for over two months, 10% for over three months and 2% for over five months.
Significant delay in the allocation of a named guardian means many children wait until late in the proceedings to meet their guardian and receive the proactive service required to safeguard their interests. In many areas the named guardian is not appointed by the Case Management Conference, leading to further delay when cases are adjourned to enable a Children’s Guardian to make a meaningful contribution.
Duty schemes offer only an arms-length risk-assessment on papers that leaves children vulnerable to the wrong decisions being made.
Many children are not seen for lengthy periods until their named guardian is appointed. Consequently the voice of the child is not being heard by the court when decisions are being made about them. Some cases are being decided by the passage of time rather than by proactive consideration of the child’s needs at the start of the case. Nagalro questions whether Cafcass and the government are in breach of their human rights obligations such as Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – the right to be consulted and to have a voice in the court proceedings which affect their lives.
Practitioners were shocked by Anthony Douglas’ comments on recent the BBC’s File on Four programme about the crisis in Cafcass when he suggested that talking to babies and children under six is “not what we do”.
File on Four also reported that Cafcass is allocating large numbers of cases to some managers. Such ‘phantom allocation’ would conceal the true extent of cases waiting for allocation to a practitioner who can do any work on them.
Over 80% of respondents told Nagalro they were instructed to prioritise tasks other than work with the child. Staff reported a significant increase in paperwork being driven by demands from Ofsted. Many referred to the repeated re-writing and re-organising of files as one new recording policy quickly supersedes the next as a particularly poor use of time. Inspection of files rather than quality of practice has become the driving imperative. Poor workforce management and a bullying management culture are seen as responsible for higher sickness rates and staff turnover.
Cafcass is failing to make best use of its resources, Nagalro says. Its high spend on agency staff contrasts with choosing not to use its experienced work force, including the freelance self-employed contractors designed as a resource for just such a time of strain. Napo, the main Cafcass union, draws attention to large increases in head office costs and salaries for top managers over the past 2-3 years in its statement issued 12 February 2010, ‘Cafcass in Meltdown’.
The emerging picture is of an organisation that has lost touch with its sole purpose and lacks comprehension of its of core role - that of protecting children’s best interests in court proceedings. As a consequence the voice of the child and the active presentation of a coherent case for the child in family court proceedings are being undermined by the very agency that should be promoting children’s interests.
Alison Paddle is the press officer for Nagalro
Children are the biggest losers from the crisis at Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), according to Time for Children a recent survey of work in public law care proceedings conducted by Nagalro, the professional association for Children’s Guardians, Family Court Advisers and Independent Social Workers. The survey provides a first snapshot of the impact of changes resulting from the President of the Family Division’s Interim Guidance of 30 July 2009 and Cafcass Operating Priorities of August 2009.
Cafcass received an unprecedented 21% increase over three years in its government grant for 2008-11. Despite a fall in care applications in 2008 Cafcass blamed a large rise in proceedings from November 2008 after the Baby Peter case for plunging it into renewed crisis. By August 2009 Anthony Douglas, Cafcass Chief Executive, declared the organisation was only able provide a “safe minimum standard” of work on cases, a concept Nagalro describes as “essentially subjective”. In October 2009 Douglas told The Times that the service was on “an emergency footing”.
Major concerns identified in Nagalro’s survey include the backlog of cases that rapidly developed and led to the widespread introduction of duty systems. Of 300 cases allocated to 73 survey respondents since January 2009, 40% remained unallocated for over two months, 10% for over three months and 2% for over five months.
Significant delay in the allocation of a named guardian means many children wait until late in the proceedings to meet their guardian and receive the proactive service required to safeguard their interests. In many areas the named guardian is not appointed by the Case Management Conference, leading to further delay when cases are adjourned to enable a Children’s Guardian to make a meaningful contribution.
Duty schemes offer only an arms-length risk-assessment on papers that leaves children vulnerable to the wrong decisions being made.
Many children are not seen for lengthy periods until their named guardian is appointed. Consequently the voice of the child is not being heard by the court when decisions are being made about them. Some cases are being decided by the passage of time rather than by proactive consideration of the child’s needs at the start of the case. Nagalro questions whether Cafcass and the government are in breach of their human rights obligations such as Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – the right to be consulted and to have a voice in the court proceedings which affect their lives.
Practitioners were shocked by Anthony Douglas’ comments on recent the BBC’s File on Four programme about the crisis in Cafcass when he suggested that talking to babies and children under six is “not what we do”.
File on Four also reported that Cafcass is allocating large numbers of cases to some managers. Such ‘phantom allocation’ would conceal the true extent of cases waiting for allocation to a practitioner who can do any work on them.
Over 80% of respondents told Nagalro they were instructed to prioritise tasks other than work with the child. Staff reported a significant increase in paperwork being driven by demands from Ofsted. Many referred to the repeated re-writing and re-organising of files as one new recording policy quickly supersedes the next as a particularly poor use of time. Inspection of files rather than quality of practice has become the driving imperative. Poor workforce management and a bullying management culture are seen as responsible for higher sickness rates and staff turnover.
Cafcass is failing to make best use of its resources, Nagalro says. Its high spend on agency staff contrasts with choosing not to use its experienced work force, including the freelance self-employed contractors designed as a resource for just such a time of strain. Napo, the main Cafcass union, draws attention to large increases in head office costs and salaries for top managers over the past 2-3 years in its statement issued 12 February 2010, ‘Cafcass in Meltdown’.
The emerging picture is of an organisation that has lost touch with its sole purpose and lacks comprehension of its of core role - that of protecting children’s best interests in court proceedings. As a consequence the voice of the child and the active presentation of a coherent case for the child in family court proceedings are being undermined by the very agency that should be promoting children’s interests.
Alison Paddle is the press officer for Nagalro
