A family court judge has criticized a CAFCASS reporter for failing to follow court directions in a welfare assessment. The judge described the reporter’s approach as ‘entirely inappropriate’ after she ‘unilaterally chose to depart from the clear court direction’.
The case, A Father v A Mother, involved proceedings related to contact between a father and his child. His Honour Judge Willans had ordered a CAFCASS report with a direction that the report must make recommendations on the basis that the court had not made findings against the father.
According to the written judgment, the CAFCASS reporter ‘fundamentally failed to follow the legal principles’ by introducing ‘into their reasoning matters not proven or indeed not subject to fact finding’ and not following the ‘clear direction’ given by the court.
The reporter had ‘entirely abdicated the duty placed upon her’, the judgment said, and ‘unilaterally chose to depart from the clear court direction [and] raise her own assessment of the disputed allegations over that of the court’.
The judge emphasized that those advising must advise on the basis of the facts as found by the court, and it is impermissible for the reporter, expert, or agency to proceed otherwise.
The judge noted that the court and parents had waited ‘the best part of six-months for a recommendation from the reporter’. ‘To not receive this after such a period is inexcusable,’ he added.
Related: Legendary solicitor’s practice thrives at 90
The reporter’s evidence that her manager had advised her to take the approach she had suggested indicated ‘a systematic rather than personal failure’. The judge stated that he ‘will be seeking a response from management as to how they propose to address the issues highlighted in this judgment’.
He added: ‘Frankly I do not want to be confronted by such a scenario again.’ The judge also stated that ‘the court cannot and does not allow the parties to set the evidential agenda for a fact-finding’.
On the substance of the case, the judge refused to stop contact, as recommended by CAFCASS, finding that to do so would be ‘positively harmful’ to the child.
The judge’s decision highlights the importance of careful consideration and adherence to legal principles in family court proceedings, such as those involving family law cases.
The judge’s criticism of the reporter serves as a reminder of the importance of accountability and adherence to legal principles in family court proceedings, which can have a lasting impact on the lives of families and children.
