The inspection
was undertaken in three CAFCASS Regions and CAFCASS Central office
and in each region the inspection teams visited up to three CAFCASS
offices and up to four courts. 67 recently completed private law
court reports about domestic violence cases were inspected with
the assistance of CAFCASS practitioners and managers. In addition,
19 public law reports were inspected and two public law cases were
discussed in depth with the practitioners responsible for the cases.
The response
from CAFCASS to the Report was "CAFCASS recognises the need
to safeguard and support victims of domestic violence, including
children, more rigorously. The joint inspection report highlights
many areas of concern for us and we are committed to improving the
experiences of victims of domestic violence who are referred to
our service following relationship breakdown.
The impact
of domestic violence, both at the time and often after separation,
is well brought out in the joint inspection report. The findings
of this report will be built into our practice and into our quality
assurance programmes. Within our Action Plan, we are developing
a practice model based on sound risk assessments and clear case
plans, rooted in a safeguarding approach. Domestic violence always
needs a multi-agency recognition and response, and the lessons for
ourselves and our partner agencies will be taken on board and given
the highest priority, given the justifiable seriousness of the criticisms
of us made in the report." -
Anthony Douglas
Chief Executive, CAFCASS
Domestic
violence is not a factor in all family proceedings cases dealt with
by HMCS and CAFCASS but is considered to be significant in up to
70% or more. The number of children affected each year by domestic
violence is not known with any precision. CAFCASS Annual Reports
include both application numbers and the total of children dealt
with but there is no separate category where domestic violence is
alleged [historical database reporting issue]. In a survey of 300
cases Napo found allegations of domestic violence made against the
male partner in 61% of cases and against the female partner in 16%
of cases. Contact, Separation and The Work of Family Court Staff
(April 2003).
Anecdotally,
CAFCASS practitioners place the incidence of domestic violence in
the region of 90% or more of cases they deal with. From an audit
of over 600 cases, HMICA found domestic violence in 38% of reports.
In discussion
groups with 30 women service users (the fathers group approached
by HMICA did not respond) they said they experienced CAFCASS as
disempowering and said that they did not feel that CAFCASS worked
in partnership with them or dealt with the individual and unique
features of their case but that CAFCASS was itself a system with
a process of its own that they were subjected to, rather than participated
in. Examples given to HMICA include the requirement to have a joint
meeting with their abusive ex-partner against their wishes or allow
the child's father into the mother's home for an observed visit.
One mother said that, because of her experience of domestic violence,
she was "terrified of going out of the house" but "CAFCASS
insisted that I did, to keep an interview at the CAFCASS office".
They said that as mothers, the feeling of being disempowered as
parents when practitioners told them that CAFCASS was there to help
the court makethe decision about the children, rather than that
the decision would be made in partnership with them. They felt that
CAFCASS used its power to 'take over their parental responsibility'
without their consent. Women from one CAFCASS region told Inspectors
that it is standard practice to send out a letter to both parties,
including the time and dates of the interviews for all parties.
All the
groups said that CAFCASS practitioners were ill-prepared for their
interviews. They gave examples where practitioners had not read
the papers in advance of the meeting and were unaware that their
ex-partner had been violent and abusive: "Some of the basics
were missed like being on time, being prepared, making you feel
welcome, knowing the children's names". The women talked about
not being believed by CAFCASS about the alleged abuse and the HMICA
observation of interviews found that a sceptical approach by practitioners
was common: "During all this disbelief, you feel like you are
not right in the head, so you are unsure if you've said the right
things to CAFCASS. If they don't believe you, why should you trust
them?" Another consistent view was that the alleged violence
was ignored byCAFCASS: "My son even drew a picture of the violence
but this was all dismissed". The effect of violence on the
child was not assessed: "CAFCASS saw the way my daughter was
after the visit to her father; she was very upset but it wasn't
in the report". The groups said that CAFCASS did not pay attention
to diversity issues. For example, one of the woman said: "they
could have asked me a bit more about my culture and given me the
opportunity to say that these are my concerns". The lack of
attention by CAFCASS to diversity issues was corroborated by Inspectors
in the observed interviews. Reports were not seen in advance of
court by any of the group members. Consequently, at court there
was insufficient time to discuss the report contents. In the women's
view, abuse was screened out of them. The groups were disappointed
by the way their children were dealt with by CAFCASS, in particular
that meetings were brief and so were not child focused: "They
need to get to know the children before interviewing them".
They reiterated that practitioners did not understand what abuse
did to the lives of their children and all the women said that their
children had been part of the domestic violence: "My child
can remember her father squeezing her face when she was fifteen
months old". "It was the most horrendous journey of my
life but CAFCASS doesn't realise that my child has gone through
this too". HMICA is concerned that the evidence from the observed
sessions by Inspectors show that these interview practices appear
to be common in CAFCASS.
However,
one of the 30 women who met with HMICA was very positive about the
support she received from CAFCASS and other aspects of her experience
of that Service. Her key messages were that CAFCASS should: ·
provide a service that fits the case rather than fit the case into
the traditional CAFCASS approach: "CAFCASS treated my case
as unique - they didn't make assumptions about me or presume contact.
I was treated as an individual, not a case" · be prepared
for interviews: "The practitioner really listened to me. She
had read all the information in advance and was prepared" ·
take time to explain: "The practitioner gave me information
about the whole process and explained that information - she explained
what she was doing and why she was doing it" · remember
how stressful the process can be for some service users and take
steps to support survivors of domestic violence: "I was allowed
to have someone there in the interview to support me and I think
children should bring a friend along, too" · ensure
that the voice of the child is heard and reported on: "CAFCASS
was the only agency that wanted the child's viewpoint" ·
complete a thorough assessment of all the issues: "There was
a check into the mental abuse of the children, not just the physical
abuse" · be proactive about understanding diversity
issues in relation to identity: "CAFCASS covered the needs
of my mixed-race daughter and helped me think about the move to
(this city) and my daughter's identity and black heritage ·
not try to mediate in advance of risk assessment: "There should
not be joint meetings in domestic violence cases"· provide
information and choice: "CAFCASS should ensure that [users]
understand their rights [and responsibilities] including choice
and consent to decisions made during contact with CAFCASS; it should
offer a choice of the gender of practitioner in abuse cases".
Inspectors
appreciate that interviewing involves gathering new information,
confirming what is already known or filling in what might be missing.
However, there needs to be an assessment, as well as a narrative
part to interviews, and practice should be focused on assessments
that are shared with children and families. In one of the observed
sessions, the practitioner used the welfare checklist well as an
assessment tool and discussed each section with the service user.
However, this was not a common approach. Practice seemed to place
too much emphasis on the reporter role rather than advisor or evaluator
role. This might be a reflection of the complexities involved in
domestic abuse cases. Rarely are such cases straightforward with
clear evidence about the nature or veracity of the alleged abuse.
One practitioner
summed this up: "It is very hard to propose 'no contact' because
of the amount of time given to collect information - we look for
compromise knowing that the court will presume contact. CAFCASS
can be confident where there is clarity about the violence, perhaps
a finding of fact. But in most cases there is ambiguity, with insufficient
evidence for courts or for that matter CAFCASS, so the 'rule of
optimism' is applied".
Practitioners
often seemed unduly hurried and ill-prepared, with a lack of reference
to previous information. The fast pace that CAFCASS worked to was
disconcerting but the narrative approach, which concentrates on
information collection, seems to be an unnecessarily time-consuming
method. There is likely to be a connection between this busy culture
and the service users' views of their experience of CAFCASS.
In one observed
session, the practitioner did not know what had happened at the
finding of fact hearing in the case. He said that he did not have
a copy of the previous CAFCASS report because "only the original
practitioner would be able to find it". However, he said the
fact that the previous report ordered 'no contact' with the father
"told him enough". One practitioner pointed to why these
practicesn were common when she said: "The issue is that where
we have little information in the system about the parties, there
is a desire to get them together to get a result".
Some managers
said: "Practitioners only fill in the risk form when there
is an identified risk, rather than as a tool to identify risk. The
Child Protection procedures are not sufficiently bedded into the
service and managers are not sufficiently bedded into the risk assessment
culture". CAFCASS practitioners were very relaxed in giving
attention to their own safety and this might be reflected in their
similarly relaxed attitude to risk in general and to service user
views about safety. Where alarm systems were fitted, practitioners
were either unaware of them or did not know what the response procedure
should be.
There was
evidence that some cases had been seen by service managers but in
one region the actions required by the manager (such as requesting
the practitioner to complete checks with the local authority and
other agencies) had not been followed up. There was also no provision
for manager comments to be marked on the file, so there was no indication
of any oversight, risk analysis or quality check exercised by the
manager. From our observations, domestic violence is treated as
just one factor, equal with others but not a 'weighted' factor in
the case. Consequently, domestic violence is not explored in detail,
even when it is evident.
The pressure
in the court system means that decisions are taken very quickly
and, in conducting conciliation sessions at court, little opportunity
is available or is taken to adequately explore whether the parties'
consent to joint meetings has been given freely and is fully informed.
Inspectors observed that some of the parties who were interviewed
jointly with their ex-partner, did so reluctantly and were clearly
uncomfortable. The work of practitioners is rarely, if ever, observed
by their managers. Inspectors are concerned that there is no systematic
means to reflect on or identify best practice. Poor practice remains
unchallenged at best, or is invisible at worst.
In discussion
with Inspectors, one practitioner set out some of the best practice
issues that she used with children and families:· undertake
initial screening in all cases to establish whether abuse is an
issue: "I don't ask about allegations but I ask how the relationship
works. I recognise the high number of cases in the family court
that have domestic violence allegations, so I ask all parties if
domestic violence is a feature within the relationship. The answers
to that question help me to assess whether I am working with a pattern
of abuse. The answer has lots of implications, of course" ·
build up a picture about the nature of the abuse in the case, its
frequency, duration and overall effect: "I try to get parties
to give a comprehensive picture. Did domestic violence feature at
the beginning or towards the end of the relationship, or was it
ongoing?" · help survivors to disclose the abuse more
fully: "If people don't disclose, we need to be able to ask
the right questions to enable disclosure, if necessary. For example,
sexual abuse is rarely revealed and women find it hard to disclose
this; in fact, it's harder than disclosing that they are being hit"
· give the information that is needed about how CAFCASS works:
"I explain the purpose of the report and what's going to happen
in terms of the process" · understand the complexities
and behaviours that are involved in domestic abuse cases: ·
"Survivors seem to fear that disclosing will reflect on their
parenting and that they might lose their children. Perpetrators,
on the other hand, have a motive for saying things that make it
seem like the children are at risk from the resident parent"·
use an assessment tool: "I use Sturge and Glaser to make my
assessments" · learn from best practice models and inter-agency
work: "perhaps learn from social services who look at domestic
violence every day and they are assessing risk. CAFCASS is not good
at using best practice from other agencies".
CAFCASS
spends most of its practitioner resource on producing reports for
the court. As such, CAFCASS will be disappointed with the results
of the report audit of 67 private law reports where domestic violence
issues were present in the case: over a third of the reports did
not meet the minimum standard. In one in ten of these cases, the
children were not seen by CAFCASS. In some courts and offices, Inspectors
observed practitioners commencing work without any information about
the children and families.
CAFCASS
has produced a valuable new policy on domestic violence which incorporates
a 'toolkit' to inform best practice. Alongside sections on definitions,
assessment and risk, the toolkit has chapters covering the child's
experience of domestic violence and its impact on child development.
As it stands, the policy and toolkit could provide sufficient information
and best practice guidance to improve service delivery but only
if it is implemented in full. HMICA was told by CAFCASS that there
is protected finance for the roll-out of the policy. Whilst this
is an appropriate first step, Inspectors are concerned that CAFCASS
does not propose to issue the policy as practice procedures with
a set of national standards that must be followed.
CAFCASS
does not yet have a supervision policy but it is currently working
with the idea of proportionality. This means that practitioners
would be supervised in relation to their assessed need for supervision,
based on their experience. HMICA has reservations about the CAFCASS
approach to supervision and its proposed link to the principle of
proportionality. Inspectors consider that, on the basis of evidence
gathered in this Review, the way CAFCASS deals with domestic abuse
needs closer, rather than less, attention. Inspectors also found
that the idea of proportionality in supervision was criticised by
many managers and practitioners when handling complicated cases.
"It means that the more experienced you are, the less supervision
you will get and therefore the less support you will get on difficult
cases".
There is
a growing understanding at a senior level that best practice needs
to be identified from the various practice models currently used:
"Private law is complicated, practice varies and we do want
a better sense of what we do best. We are trying to 'bed in' a different
way of working". Alongside these welcome developments is a
desire to raise the voice of the child and hear the views of users:
"In the noise from the parents, the voice of the child can
get lost. We need to use Every Child Matters for each child and
better understand how the service is perceived by users".
In law,
children's needs are paramount. But where the emphasis is on agreement-seeking,
there is a risk that their views become marginalised as their parents'
dispute takes centre stage. This is because children are not parties
to proceedings unless made so through Rule 9.5, which provides them
with a separate and independent voice. In all cases, there needs
to be an assessment of risk and an evaluation of the information
available. A CAFCASS report restricted to what each party says is
insufficient.
Annex B
of the Inspection Report refers to an analysis of public law reports
but this analysis was not included in the main body of the report
'to avoid any possible confusion with the Review's focus on private
law': · All the reports met minimum standards when describing
the harm the child has suffered. · However, where a contact
order was being considered the issue of possible violence to the
child was not addressed in a third of the reports. · The
majority reported the factual information available about domestic
violence but one in seven did not. · In over a quarter of
the reports, the impact of domestic violence or the risk of future
harm to children or adults was not assessed, with consequent potential
risk to their safety.
-
Children were seen in all cases. · In a quarter of reports,
a recommendation to the court was not made.
- Regarding
diversity or identity issues, the minimum standard or above
was met in the majority of reports across all indicators. Over
a fifth of the reports fell below the minimum standard.
This report
finds an inherent danger arising from the current policy emphasis
on seeking mediated agreements between parents in ever-larger numbers
of disputed family proceedings. We conclude that ensuring the safety
of both children and adults receives insufficient consideration
from CAFCASS and HM Courts Service - this was a strong and consistent
message from the women survivors of domestic violence who we consulted.
We consider that arrangements for assessing the risks associated
with allegations of domestic violence need markedly strengthening.
This inspection shows there is a risk that individuals within agencies
sometimes find it easier to downplay or even ignore the presenting
signs of domestic violence. Its seriousness, and corrosive effects
on both survivors and children, requires that HMCS and CAFCASS implement
robust strategies to guide staff in how to handle cases where domestic
violence is alleged, or is proven to be an issue, in the context
of family proceedings.
Inspectors
conclude that the nature of domestic abuse is not sufficiently understood
by most CAFCASS practitioners. Routine ways of working do not assess
risk and some are dangerous where, for example, there is a lack
of attention to safety planning. The role of CAFCASS as advisor
to the family courts causes it concerns because, although some assessments
can reliably be informed by judicial findings, in other cases the
crucial issue of whether domestic violence has occurred remains
undecided. This also confuses service users. I am pleased to report
examples of good practice in both Services but the overall picture
is far less satisfactory. Both HMCS and CAFCASS need significantly
to improve safety within their service delivery and the report's
eleven recommendations are designed to assist that process.
Five recommendations
are made to CAFCASS to help improve its service to children and
families with particular relevance to domestic violence.
These are:
- Devise
and disseminate information about family proceedings. In order
to improve its service to children and families, CAFCASS should
with other agencies, stakeholders and service users devise and
disseminate a comprehensive information pack about family proceedings
with particular reference to issues relevant to the needs of
children and their families in domestic violence cases. [Domestic
Violence Toolkit has been produced].
- Use
risk assessment, safety planning and best practice guidance.
In order to improve its service to children and families, CAFCASS
should:
- ensure
that all cases, including conciliation at court, are subject
to risk assessment and liaison with other agencies
-
devise best practice guidance and procedures for preparing
reports in domestic violence cases
-
ensure safety planning is undertaken for all cases.
- Put
in place national standards and competencies and ensuring a
focus on safeguarding rather than a presumption of contact.
In order to improve services to children and families, CAFCASS
should:
- implement
a strategy to ensure improved practice in domestic abuse
cases
- devise
national standards and competencies for work in domestic
violence cases
- ensure
compliance with the new domestic violence policy and toolkit
- create
domestic violence champions throughout CAFCASS
- ensure
that the focus on safeguarding is integrated into the casework
process and takes priority when considering contact and
agreement-seeking in domestic violence cases.
- Develop
multi-agency protocols for information exchange and inter-agency
liaison. In order to safeguard children and adults, CAFCASS
should agree and implement a clear multi-agency protocol regarding
information exchange and inter-agency liaison in domestic violence
cases.
- Provide
training in risk assessment and working with children. In order
to improve services to children and families, CAFCASS should
provide training:
-
in assessment and risk assessment skills
-
on communication skills for direct work with children in
domestic violence cases
-
in domestic violence for all staff and, where possible,
do so on an inter-agency basis.
A
further six recommendations are made to HMCS to help improve its
care of court users, again with particular relevance to domestic
violence in family proceedings. These are:
- making
information about court facilities available to vulnerable parties
before they attend court
-
developing and implementing policies that address the availability
and use of facilities for vulnerable or intimidated parties
-
ensuring an appropriate balance is maintained between safety
and service delivery, through the use of robust risk assessment
procedures
-
identifying, collecting and using relevant management information
- developing
links with national and local community groups working with
survivors of domestic violence
-
providing training for court staff.
