Cafcass wrongly intervened in case

What happened

Mr H applied to a court for more contact with his daughter, and the court asked Cafcass for its view of the situation.

Mr H's daughter did not want more contact with her father, so Cafcass advised her to write to the court (and Mr H) to explain her reasons. The child did this and Cafcass wrote a report recommending that the court act in line with the child's views. Following this, the court did not grant Mr H's application. However, it decided it would review the situation a few months later.

Shortly before the review hearing, Mr H's daughter contacted Cafcass and told it she no longer wanted any contact with her father. Although Cafcass was no longer involved with her case at that time, she asked it to pass on her views to the court. She also asked Cafcass to talk to Mr H on her behalf. Cafcass agreed to both requests.

When Cafcass spoke to Mr H, he said he felt his daughter's views were being heavily influenced by her mother and that he had evidence to prove it. He asked Cafcass to pass this on to the court, but Cafcass refused, saying it was no longer involved in the case.

Mr H complained to Cafcass about what had happened. He said Cafcass' original report had been biased against him and had failed to recognise the negative influence his former partner had on his daughter. He also complained that Cafcass had treated him and his daughter differently.

Cafcass considered Mr H's concerns but was satisfied it had acted reasonably. Mr H remained unhappy and he complained to us.

What we found

We partly upheld Mr H's complaint. We found no evidence Cafcass had been biased against Mr H or that it had ignored his concerns about his former partner's influence on his daughter. We also found that, if Mr H had disagreed with Cafcass' report, he could have challenged it in court.

We found that Cafcass should not have passed Mr H's daughter's views to the court shortly before the review hearing. Nor should it have agreed to her request to speak to Mr H on her behalf because it was no longer professionally involved in the case at that time. We felt Cafcass should not have intervened in what was, in essence, a private matter. We felt this would have been upsetting to Mr H, particularly as he already felt Cafcass was acting against him. But we accepted that, in doing these things, Cafcass felt it was acting in the child's best interests.

During our investigation, we found that Cafcass had failed to keep a record of some of the contact it had had with Mr H while dealing with his case. Although we found no evidence this affected the outcome of the court hearings, we felt the poor record keeping would have been frustrating for Mr H.

Putting it right

Cafcass apologised for its failures. It also paid Mr H £250 in recognition of the upset and frustration he experienced because of these failures.