Mrs W complained that the Family court advisor assigned to her case had not conducted herself well during an interview with her two children. Mrs W was also concerned that the Family court advisor was biased against her and had made a number of factual errors in her report to court.
What happened
Mrs W applied to court to have her two son's surnames changed. A Family court advisor was asked to write a report and in preparation, she interviewed the boys at their home. The Family court advisor's report had a number of errors because she had mixed up the boys' names. She accepted the errors and produced an amended report. However, Mrs W complained that there were further errors in the amended report, including a section where the Family court advisor had referred to Mrs W's six–month–old son as having initiated the name change. Mrs W complained again to Cafcass, which maintained that the amended report was accurate and that disputes over opinion were for the court to determine.
The Family court advisor recommended to the court that Mrs W's children should not be allowed to change their surnames. The court did not agree and instead allowed Mrs W's application.
What we found
We partly upheld this complaint. There was no evidence to suggest that the Family court advisor had not acted in Mrs W's children's best interests. We also accepted Cafcass's view that there was a difference of opinion between Mrs W and the Family court advisor about which of the children had said what during the Family court advisor's interview with them, and that such differences of opinion were for the court to consider. However, there was an error in the Family court advisor's amended report about which child had initiated the name change, and the Family court advisor should have amended this when Mrs W brought it to her attention. This error should have been noticed and rectified as part of Cafcass's complaints procedure, so that Mrs W did not have to pursue matters as she did.
While we did not agree that the Family court advisor had let Mrs W's children down, and some of her concerns had been for the court to consider, we accepted that the Family court advisor's errors had led Mrs W to question her professionalism, and had caused her frustration and inconvenience.
Putting it right
Cafcass accepted our finding that there was an error in the Family court advisor's amended report that should have been corrected. It apologised to Mrs W for this oversight and for not addressing this part of her complaint thoroughly enough as part of its own complaints procedure.
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass)
UK
Not applicable
Apology