Mr and Mrs F’s Story
Jump to
Mr F has dyslexia, dyspraxia and scotopic sensitivity (in which reading is impeded by distortions in print). As a result, he has difficulty communicating with people both orally and in writing. He finds it easier to express himself in face-to-face meetings, rather than by telephone, and needs to have written material provided on a certain colour paper and in a certain font in order for him to understand it. Even then he is a very slow reader, and he becomes anxious and nervous when he has to write something.
Mr F wanted to have a greater input into his daughter’s life and, in November 2007, he applied to a County Court for a contact and residence order in respect of her. He said in his application form that he had dyslexia and might ‘need some help with reading and writing material’. The case was sent to the District Family Proceedings Court, and the following month Mr F was invited to discuss his application. Mr F said that at the meeting he had completed a diversity monitoring form saying that he had a disability (dyslexia) and that he needed support to use their services, and that he had explained his disabilities.
In March 2008 a Family Court Adviser from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) wrote telling Mr F that Cafcass had been asked to prepare a welfare report, and that she would therefore be visiting him in April. During a visit on 28 April, when both Mr F and his current wife were present, Mr F completed a second diversity monitoring form in which he repeated the information he had given in the first form. Mr F said that he had told the adviser the font, font size, and the colour the paper needed to be in order for him to be able to read any written correspondence, and that he preferred face-to-face contact. The records show that, following a home visit in May to observe Mr and Mrs F with Mr F’s daughter, the adviser made two lengthy telephone calls to Mr F later that day and the next explaining various issues to him.
Cafcass sent their welfare report in respect of Mr F’s application to the Court in May, and copied it to Mr F (in the correct font size, but with the incorrect font and colour paper). The report said that Mr F was dyslexic and dyspraxic, that it therefore took him longer, when under pressure, to gather his thoughts and articulate his views, and that adjustments needed to be made to reading material to assist him to read it. The report said that those needs had been taken into account when producing the report.
Over the following 10 months Mr and Mrs F wrote several times to Cafcass to complain about aspects of the welfare report, and Cafcass responded saying that the Court had been the appropriate forum in which to challenge the report. None of Mr and Mrs F’s letters mentioned Mr F’s disabilities, and none of Cafcass’s replies were in the font requested by Mr F.
In the meantime, in October 2008, the Court had made a contact order specifying a schedule of contact for school terms and vacations.
In March 2009 Cafcass reviewed their management of Mr F’s case and found that diversity issues had been taken into account, in that monitoring forms had been completed and the copy of the report sent to Mr F had been in the requested font size. They said that there was no evidence that anything else had been requested. Cafcass then wrote to Mr F offering to meet him to discuss the review. At the meeting, which took place in May, Mr and Mrs F produced a lengthy document setting out their complaint. They contended that Cafcass had failed to respond to Mr F’s disability appropriately in line with the Disability Discrimination Act. They said ‘No assessment was made of [Mr F] to find out how his disability would affect him during the report’ and that his wishes with regard to font size and so on, had initially been ignored. The remainder of the complaint then dealt with the content of the report.
Cafcass agreed to review the complaint document and meet Mr F again; but when they did so, they told Mr and Mrs F that they had reached the end of the complaints process.
In subsequent correspondence, Mr F said that he believed that Cafcass had collected the disability monitoring information for statistical analysis, rather than to make the necessary adjustments. He believed that if he had been given additional support from the outset, he would have been able to express himself properly and the Cafcass report might have reached a different conclusion.
What our investigation found
We found that, although Cafcass had assisted Mr F to complete diversity monitoring forms on two occasions, they had simply recorded his disability and not the changes that needed to be made for him to have fair and equal access to their services. There is evidence that the Family Court Adviser discussed those requirements with Mr F, but did not record what they had agreed anywhere on the files. That was contrary to their own guidance on equality and diversity, which said that any support needs should be clearly highlighted on the case file.
We could not be certain of exactly what Mr F had requested, but found it most likely, on the balance of probabilities, that he had told them of his preference for face-to-face meetings and his precise font and paper colour needs.
We found that that initial failure to record the action they needed to take to meet Mr F’s needs was the predominant cause of the shortcomings in all Cafcass’s future dealings with Mr F. As a result they sent him written information in the wrong format, and had lengthy telephone calls with him, without apparently considering alternatives. We also found that Cafcass missed the point when they told us that their failure to meet Mr F’s requirements had been prolonged because Mr F had not raised disability issues with them when he had first complained. Had Cafcass had proper regard to their own guidance and made proper records, it should not have been necessary for Mr F to remind them of his needs.
We did not find that, had Cafcass understood Mr F’s disabilities and made appropriate adjustments, it would have resulted in a different welfare report. However, we were satisfied that Cafcass’s failures in this regard had caused Mr F additional distress and upset in a situation which was already by its very nature difficult and emotional. It must have been deeply frustrating for him to not to feel able to get his point across adequately when discussing access arrangements for his daughter. Further, the experience had clearly made him reluctant to go back to court about those arrangements as it meant having to re-engage with Cafcass.
We found that Cafcass failed to ‘get it right’ in that they did not have proper regard to their own guidance or to the Disability Discrimination Act in their decision making on Mr F’s case. This failure to get it right was so serious as to amount to maladministration. Mr F experienced injustice as a consequence of the maladministration. We upheld his complaint about Cafcass.
What happened next
Cafcass apologised for the poor service Mr F had received and said that they would highlight the adjustments that needed to be made for him on current and any future files, and would review his needs with him on a regular basis in any future dealings they might have. Although we provisionally recommended that Cafcass pay Mr F £250 in recognition of the frustration, distress and upset he experienced as a result of Cafcass’s maladministration, Mr F said he did not want any payment.
Cafcass reviewed the learning from the investigation for dissemination across its operations.
