Cafcass and ADCS withdraw agreement over collaboration in care proceedings

A controversial agreement between the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and Cafcass over children’s care proceedings has been scrapped.

The two bodies said in a joint statement that the agreement they reached in February over how local authorities and Cafcass could work together in care proceedings had been terminated.

They said: “The agreement…was developed with the intention of improving the standard of social work and tackling delays in the family court.

“The document was never intended to undermine the independence of children’s guardians, nor was it intended to shut out parents or their representatives from due process within proceedings.

“Due to concerns raised by some stakeholders we took the decision to withdraw the document in question.

“ADCS and Cafcass regularly promote good practice throughout the social work sector and will continue to look for ways we can work effectively in the best interests of children and their families.”

The agreement provided for a ‘culture of urgency’ for matters affecting children and young people, set out how local authorities and Cafcass aimed to work together “to secure swift outcomes for children, young people and their families”, recognised the distinct roles social workers and guardians play and provided a framework for resolving disputes between professionals.

But it was soon attacked by the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC), which said: “In putting its name to this document, Cafcass is losing sight of the importance of the independent role of the children’s guardian in public law proceedings.”

The ALC said the agreement went "far beyond” simply facilitating co-operation between councils and Cafcass, and in particular objected to provisions which it said would see Cafcass playing in a decisive role in cases that never reached a court.

It said: “We cannot imagine that Parliament intended that Cafcass would use the powers given to it to undermine its own independence and, without parliamentary approval, effectively circumvent the role of the court.”