Alliance calls for alternatives to Cafcass to be explored

An inter-disciplinary alliance including the Association of Lawyers for Children and the Family Law Bar Association has issued a joint position paper questioning whether the Cafcass model is “either the most effective in terms of outcomes for children, or the most cost effective use of available resources, both financial and human”.

The group of 16 organisations – which also includes the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health – said Cafcass’ current operating priorities posed “a serious threat” to the statutory framework of children’s rights and evidence-based health and welfare policies.

“Two examples of this are the proposed amendment of s.41 Children Act 189 – opposed by 22 inter-disciplinary organisations in 2009 – and a recent legal note circulated by Cafcass which purports to give it authority to make changes to the s. 41 roles and responsibilities of the children’s guardian,” the alliance said.

The position paper also claimed that there were a number of other areas of concern:

• “Unacceptable” backlogs of cases in public and private law proceedings, “despite the commitment and best efforts of front line staff who have been working under great pressure for a considerable length of time”
• From August 2009, Cafcass has been on “an emergency footing and has only been able to offer a ‘minimum safe standard’ of service delivery". A gap has opened up between organisational definitions of what constitutes a ‘safe minimum’ and the statutory duty to give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child, the paper said
• The assumption that “appears to be underlie operational decision-making and resource allocation within Cafcass is that what is best for Cafcass as an organisation will also be best for children". “This is debatable and currently not evidence-based", according to the alliance
• Cafcass has become increasingly bureaucratised and “this is impeding the proper exercise of the professional discretion of its practitioners"
• The framework of inspection applied by OFSTED does not appear to be fit for purpose.

The alliance said it wanted to initiate a constructive exploration of possible alternative arrangements. There is considerable interdisciplinary consensus about the key principles and priorities that should be adopted when it comes to appropriate organisational structures and models of service delivery, the paper added.

The alliance sent the joint position statement to Alan Beith MP, the chair of the Parliamentary justice committee as part of the evidence for the forthcoming enquiry into the family justice system, David Norgrove, the chair of the Family Justice Review, Professor Eileen Munro who is leading an inquiry into child protection, and Baroness Massey and other members of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Children.

The 16 members of the alliance are: the Association of Lawyers for Children; the Family Law Bar Association; the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England; Adoption UK; the British Association of Adoption and Fostering; the Children’s Rights Alliance for England; Women’s Aid Foundation; NAGALRO; Together Trust; Voice; British Association of Social Workers; National Youth Advocacy Service; Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children; NAPO; the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; the Aire Centre; and the Grandparents’ Association.

A spokeswoman for Cafcass said that over the past year its practitioners had helped more children than ever before. “Unallocated care cases now stand at 143, compared to seven times this number a year ago. Our practitioners are working on over 2,700 more care cases than they were a year ago – so we have absorbed over 30% more work, and managed to dramatically reduce our unallocated care case work," she added.

The Cafcass spokeswoman pointed out that all bar one of the last six months has seen the highest number of care applications for that month ever recorded.

“The whole family justice system is under acute pressure, yet through good joint working with judges, and partner agencies, we have collectively managed to reduce the large backlogs of unallocated care cases we had a year ago and are now in a very different place to then – a fact which the Inter-Disciplinary Alliance seems neither to give credit for nor of which it seems to be aware,” she said.

Cafcass has also introduced a more proportionate model of working, including new early intervention services in many teams, which is helping the agency to get into cases much earlier, the spokeswoman argued. “This is in keeping with the President’s Interim Guidance, which, as the figures above show demonstrate that we are providing a service to many more children than would be possible if we had not adapted our practice to meet the challenge of rising demand.”

Publication of the alliance’s position paper comes a week after the National Audit Office argued that Cafcass could have responded “more quickly and cost effectively” to the surge in cases had it fully resolved known management challenges.

However, the watchdog acknowledged that the court advisory body could not have predicted the sustained increase in care cases from November 2008.