Talk:Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service

Role of CAFCASS

Given that the UK Conservative Party has announced that it will scrap CAFCASS if it gets into power, the various contoversies surround CAFCASS, the recent resignation of it entire board, nd the delaythat use of CAFCASS itself introdes itothpoces of resolving child residence disputes, etc., it might be worth spicing this article up bit. (It's worth looking at its history pages in this regard). One comment that I thought well reflected the systemic problem of CAFCASS's role (which was made by Tony Coe of the Equal Parenting Coalition) was that CAFCASS can be likened to a fire brigade that upon arrival at a fire sits and makes a report about it. Obviously the conclusion of each report is that [[the building has burnt down. If CAFCASS was not merely a court reporting device then it could be instrumental in helping to resolve problems rather than merely watching them get worse. Matt Stan 11:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addressing the errors

CAFCASS was formed by the combining of the Guardian ad Litem Panels, managed by local authorities and the Court Welfare Service, managed by the Probation Service. CAFCASS officers act on behalf of children in providing advice to the courts. Whether the transfer of responsibilities from local to national control, in the form of the Lord Chancellors Department, was appropriate is open to question and it has certainly created many problems. However, the criticisms made in the article are wrong in both substance and detail and are evidently designed to make a misleading political statement.

CAFCASS officers are not paid £100,000, rather they are paid approximately £25,000 to £30,000 in line with other members of the social work profession. Consequently there has not been, and will not be, any sensible argument in the European Court or elsewhere that 'Cafcass are abducting UK children from loving fathers for cash'. Furthmore, there has been no imprisonment, fine or any other legal judgment in respect of CAFCASS officers abducting children in Britain or anywhere else, as CAFCASS do not have the legal power to remove children (this power rests with the Local Authority and the NSPCC, subject to a court order, or the police, under their statutory power of police protection).

It should also be noted that the Family Law Act (as with the Children Act 1989) states that it is the child's welfare that is paramount and not the child's mental health. Whether contact is in a child's best interest is a decision made according to the circumstances of each individual case and a court order. If the author checked their facts (which I'm sure they have no interest in doing), they would find that contact is awarded in the vast majority of cases, even when concerns have been expressed for the child's safety.

If Wikipedia is to have any credibility, misleading articles such as this should be removed as soon as possible, as they act only to scare, misinform and promote a narrow political cause. Finally, I should add that I am not and never have been a CAFCASS officer, but do work in the field of child welfare.--JimBean 12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Controversy"

I have removed various parts of this section and renamed it Criticism of CAFCASS. Given the nature of the statements they should be referenced in order to be verifiable. Some look just plain inaccurate. Referencing and verifiability of such material is a key part of making Wikipedia an effective encyclopedia. Paulleake 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The way I view CAFCASS is contact will be awarded until the child IS hurt? Then it is too late?

To the Anon

Please provide some sources for some of your claims of what CAFCASS is doing wrong. The reason the page has been semi-protected is you do not give any verfiable sources at all and a lot of the the things there are personal opinions and and facts. Sasquatch t|c 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Are their father rights source which says CAFcas is doing correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.205.190 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To Users: Matthew, Jim && Sasquatch

I agree with the anology of liken a fire brigade department to cafcass and thus upon arrival at a fire sits and makes a report about it, is simular to the operation of cafcass surely. However surely rather than stating this fact in the discussion page, should not some effort be made to put this anology into the document about cafcass, which as it currently stands is a little drab. Although it might not be best to put this in as it stands, it may be a good idear to put this in as a proposal for change citeing - a better way forward, with further discussions maybe about current trends in 'social welfare of children' as he would experidene them.

Regarding Jim's statements I would upmost assert that CAFCASS officers DO NOT act on behalf of children in providing advice to the courts. CAFCASS provide an oppinion in what is in the best intrest of the child, subject to the welfare checklist of the Childrens Act 1989. The two differences here in no way equate to what what is sudgested. CAFCASS officers may not be abducting children in Britain or anywhere else, however their oppinion is not always correct or it may be the case that more weight be given to a cafcass officer who is biased for reasons other than "their face didn't fit" and thus writes a court welfare report full on nothing but bias prejudice. It may not be correct to say they are abducting children, although it can be stated they may appear to others to be such like this as it could be said of anyone who works in the "field of child welfare".

If I may I will revisit this page and further edit cafcass from a legal perspective, and political perspective not one of "child welfare."

Criticism section

The Criticism section is very outdated. There is more current information here and here. I'm also not sure the name of the section is appropriate - is it meant for all commentary on Cafcass or only for the negative? The reason I ask is that the recent national Ofsted is more positive, and it also points out an upward trend in the local reports Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Revamp, tidy up, rewrite?

I agree with the editor who was of the view that this is an article with some issues and I'm aiming to work on it in the next few days to improve it. Does anyone wish to help? If not, I'll just go ahead and make some edits. Thanks.

Sharonbott (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102025004/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217343/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217343/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)