Poor safeguarding report

[Razbert]

The safeguarding letter was late and had significant errors which luckily were discussed with the duty Cafcass adviser prior to the hearing. The judge was made aware of my concerns and luckily most of its recommendations were consequently disregarded. The court directed a section 7 report which is due to start soon. My question are:-

• Will the section 7 investigation use the poor safeguarding letter at face value as a starting point or will the FCA be told to disregard it and start again?
• Can the letter be referred to in later hearings even though the court disregarded its conclusions and recommendations?
• To be sure, should I make a formal complaint regarding the letter and point out that my objections at the time were upheld by the court? I had been advised its never a good idea to complain to Cafcass, as it will identify me as a potentially disruptive party.

 

[Ash]

I don't know is the answer to the first point. The second point - it will likely be ignored if there is a S7 afterwards.

I would let the Section 7 go ahead. It may well be biased and incorrect - your recourse then is to cross examine the Cafcass officer at the final hearing and get the report undermined. There often isn't a lot you can do until the final hearing. There is usually a DRA after the S7 for both parties to comment on the S7 report.

 

[Resolute]

I had a safeguarding letter that was inaccurate. I wrote to Cafcass very carefully to point out their factual errors. They corrected the letter and sent a new version to the court a couple of days before the next hearing.

My way of addressing this was not anything like a complaint. The message was full of compliments and gratitude. All the same, they saw their errors. It helped to base what I wrote on the message they include on letters/reports. The one that tells you what can be corrected - only factual errors, not opinions.

A S7 was not ordered in my case, so I cannot say how closely they are based on SL. After the hearing it was prepared for, our SL blended into the background.

The S7 is much more involved than the SL. More information is taken from services involved with the kids and more time is spent with both parents. They often visit the home kids spend more time at, but are reluctant to come the other parent's home. If you have a good setup for the kids, it might be a good idea to encourage the officer to visit your home.

 

[Razbert]

Thanks for the advice @Resolute . I think I'll write to them to point out the factual errors as you did. I'm aware that I can't question the difference of opinion of the parties - it's clear that the author is only quoting what they're told. However I will question anything in the letter said by me which was misquoted, but only where it changed the meaning. I will also point out my omitted answers to allegations by the other party as an example of unintended bias.

I will also question the risk assessment metrics. For example, my ex had stated I was a surveillance expert (I had installed a couple of outside security cameras a while back, but that doesn't make me an expert) and had felt those outside cameras were somehow spying on her. Even though currently she and the child are living in a refuge - she said she always had the constant fear of being watched. The letter mentioned her fears and assessed there was therefore a potential risk that I might somehow still be watching her. In other words the author was siding with her paranoia!

The letter concluded by not recommending contact in case the child divulged the location of the refuge. The judge could see such a reason was wrong and said the child needs to be reunited with her father and disregarded the recommendation. He instead made it a simple condition of contact that I shouldn't discuss this with the child. I will ask that the conclusion about contact is reworded accordingly.

I wonder why they're reluctant to visit the non-resident home? I would have thought it was very important to see how the child will be accommodated. I also think it's important to see the child in both environments and to assess the child's relationship with each parent. If they don't do that, I can't imagine why not.

 

[Resolute]

However I will question anything in the letter said by me which was misquoted, but only where it changed the meaning. I will also point out my omitted answers to allegations by the other party as an example of unintended bias.

You have the idea.

Tbh, I'd avoid anything like "unintended bias." My argument was that certain omissions resulted in a factually erroneous account. Stock like glue to the language they use in the message telling you what they'll accept being pulled up on.

I think there are other threads where this came up. Try searching omission.

 

[Resolute]

The letter concluded by not recommending contact in case the child divulged the location of the refuge. The judge could see such a reason was wrong and said the child needs to be reunited with her father and disregarded the recommendation. He instead made it a simple condition of contact that I shouldn't discuss this with the child. I will ask that the conclusion about contact is reworded accordingly.

I'd say this is the author's opinion rather than a matter of fact. And, the judge has already corrected it. My SL recommended v limited supervised time. The judge disagreed. Court order supersedes SL.