Cafcass did not deal adequately with mother's complaints

What happened

Ms G was involved in a residency dispute with her ex-partner. She believed that her son's contact with his father had caused him to have an intermittent stammer. She said this was due to the father's abusive behaviour towards her son. She raised her concerns with a Cafcass officer (the officer).

In late 2012, in preparation for the first hearing about the dispute, the officer submitted a safeguarding letter (this letter relates to the issue of safety only) to the court, in which she included information about the child's stammer.

In early 2013 at another hearing, the court ordered Cafcass to submit a report about the child's welfare (a section 7 report) to the court by spring 2013. Ms G also gave the court a statement in which she referred to her son's stammer and details about when it had occurred.

When the officer submitted the section 7 report, she again mentioned the child's stammer but said she wouldn't go into details about it because she was sure this issue had been addressed in previous proceedings. However, there was nothing in Cafcass' records to suggest that the child's stammer was explored in those earlier proceedings.

Ms G complained to Cafcass that it was biased and had taken the word of the officer to be correct. But when Cafcass dealt with this issue as part of its complaint response, it told Ms G that the court would have been aware of her concerns through the safeguarding letter and her statement. It said that it was up to the officer's professional judgement what information to include in the section 7 report. If Ms G felt that not enough weight had been given to her son's stammer, then she should have challenged this in court. Cafcass also did not find evidence of bias.

Ms G also raised concerns about the officer's behaviour at the court. She said the officer had acted inappropriately when she sat with the child's father and they were laughing, which made her unhappy. Cafcass investigated this matter and said that it believed this had happened when the officer was waiting to see Ms G. Ms G disagreed with Cafcass' version of events. However, Cafcass agreed that it would have been more appropriate if the officer had been able to sit at more of a distance from the father. It said that the officer's manager would discuss with the officer how she might have given the impression of favouring one party over another.

Ms G complained to us because she wanted her concerns to be addressed.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. We found that Cafcass did not handle some aspects of Ms G's complaint as well as it could have. In relation to the child's stammer, we agreed with Cafcass that it was the officer's professional judgement to consider what information to give to the court and, if Ms G felt that insufficient weight was given to this issue, she should have raised the matter in court. However, because there was no evidence that the child's stammer had been considered in earlier proceedings, as Cafcass had stated, we did not believe the officer should have made this statement without checking if it was factually correct.

With regard to the officer's behaviour at court, we found that the officer acted in a manner that came across as unprofessional and Cafcass did not fully address Ms G's concerns. We noted that the officer's manager confirmed that she had discussed the issue as a learning point with the officer.

Putting it right

Cafcass apologised to Ms G for the inconvenience and distress caused by its failings.