Advice please: CAFCASS (S7 report), court Bundle and answering Judge question

[Conan]

Hello all
Some advice, thoughts please. It was brought to my attention that my wife's solicitors had submitted the entire court bundle to CAFCASS, including all the false allegations, following the last hearing. The judge ruled no finding of fact required and that he instructed to move forward with a S7 report by CAFCASS to return back to court by the end of May 2024. Next hearing is mid June.

Below is my flagged concern (following my previous solicitors view and concern to the Judge) and just below is the Judge's request, question to respond (received yesterday). My question, and advice requested is as follows:

1. have any of you faced this issue? How did you address it?
2. Thoughts on how I craft a response back to the Judge?
3. any thoughts and advice welcome in crafting a response please.

Judge's response asked for exactly what has been submitted to Cafcass that I disagree with

 

[Resolute]

The decision not to have a Fact Finding does not mean your ex cannot maintain her allegations and make new ones. I would be careful about concluding that her allegations have been "dismissed" by the court. They may have been classed a not determinative. This would be brushing them aside rather than dismissing them. Lack of significance does not equal absence of basis.

In my experience the Court Order is the outcome, rather than what was said in the hearing. Does the order say that her allegations are "dismissed"?

 

[Conan]

The decision not to have a Fact Finding does not mean your ex cannot maintain her allegations and make new ones. I would be careful about concluding that her allegations have been "dismissed" by the court. They may have been classed a not determinative. This would be brushing them aside rather than dismissing them. Lack of significance does not equal absence of basis.

In my experience the Court Order is the outcome, rather than what was said in the hearing. Does the order say that her allegations are "dismissed"?

Thank you Resolute
This was the feedback from my solicitors about this:

Wife's solicitors correspondence with Cafcass

xxxx have sent the hearing bundle for the last hearing to Cafcass along with the order. The order provides for the court to serve the order on Cafcass and I do not recall ever seeing Cafcass being sent a copy of a bundle for a hearing which has already taken place. I would prefer Cafcass not to have the bundle as if it does contain additional documents to those they have had sight of already, it could impact on the content and in particular, recommendations in their report. I am therefore minded to ask xxx to email Cafcass to ask them to discard the bundle. Please confirm your thoughts on this so that we can consider it further.

This is did, respectfully ask them to do and I was ignored.

 

[Resolute]

Your email states:

"logged the complete bundle (including allegations that have not been tried and were dismissed by the court)"

My question is, does the order say allegations were dismissed?

 

[Conan]

Your email states:

"logged the complete bundle (including allegations that have not been tried and were dismissed by the court)"

My question is, does the order say allegations were dismissed?

Hello Resolute
The following is a cut and paste of the recitals and order (have removed names):

 

[Resolute]

I cannot see that allegations are dismissed. The above suggests that they are relevant to the task Cafcass are to complete.

This is very frustrating, I know. But it is better than having to go through a fact finding.

Maybe use of "makes" rather than "has made" could be read as suggesting that Cafcass is to consider afresh.

This is just how it comes across to me as an outsider. Others may see differently.

EDIT
Although I cannot see that allegations stand dismissed, it seems fair to say no findings have been made.

 

[Ash]

Hi I've edited your posts a bit to remove the section of the order and certain dates and exact responses and summarised them. But I did read it all.

It does seem clear that the Judge is saying no fact find is needed, allegations are historic and delay would be bad for the children.

As Resolute says, your ex could always make new allegations to Cafcass.

If the other side has sent the bundle to Cafcass, I would suggest sending a copy of the order to Cafcass, which gives good reasons as to why there should be no fact find and more or less dismisses allegations and says other matters are more minor and can be resolved via a S7 report.

If responding to the Judge I think you need to list specific documents from the bundle that you feel are inappropriate. But personally I would let it go and just send Cafcass a copy of the order, and deal with any matters when you have your interview with them.

What did stand out was the "whether there was a need for a pschological assessment of the father". Did your ex's solicitor write that order?

Normally psychological assessments should be done on both parents, not just one.

 

[Conan]

Hi I've edited your posts a bit to remove the section of the order and certain dates and exact responses and summarised them. But I did read it all.

It does seem clear that the Judge is saying no fact find is needed, allegations are historic and delay would be bad for the children.

As Resolute says, your ex could always make new allegations to Cafcass.

If the other side has sent the bundle to Cafcass, I would suggest sending a copy of the order to Cafcass, which gives good reasons as to why there should be no fact find and more or less dismisses allegations and says other matters are more minor and can be resolved via a S7 report.

If responding to the Judge I think you need to list specific documents from the bundle that you feel are inappropriate. But personally I would let it go and just send Cafcass a copy of the order, and deal with any matters when you have your interview with them.

What did stand out was the "whether there was a need for a pschological assessment of the father". Did your ex's solicitor write that order?

Normally psychological assessments should be done on both parents, not just one.

Thanks Ash
Yes, the ex had this put on me, but no grounds re: Psychological assessment. Its just more and more barriers and difficulties against me. But, I think its left on the table just in case CAFCASS view it in regards to her!?

 

[Ash]

If it comes up again you should say that if there are to be psychological assessments, they should be on both parents.

 

[MagicJ]

Sorry @Ash @Resolute , you are better versed on this, so forgive my ignorance, I assume the stance here is that 1) a joint court bundle has everyone's documents so not unfairly influenced & 2) if S7 repeats EX's stance then it's just a case of pointing out cause & effect and as such easier to undermine?

 

[Ash]

It depends if they sent all the documents in the bundle or cherry picked them. But ultimately the order should tell Cafcass that those allegations are dismissed.