Written evidence submitted by The Magistrates'
Association (CAF 16)
RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S
DEPARTMENT INQUIRY ON CAFCASS
Thank you for inviting the Magistrates' Association
to submit a response to the Inquiry on CAFCASS. We would like
to make the following comments.
1. To represent, safeguard and promote the
welfare of children involved in family court proceedings.
The input and commitment of individual children's
guardians is, and has remained, high in almost every part of the
country. However, the organisational difficulties that have dogged
the service since its inception have resulted in vulnerable children
being placed at risk, and contributed to delay which is prejudicial
to those children's welfare. We have had it reported to us that
two children have died during care proceedings whilst awaiting
the appointment of a guardian.
Failure to appoint a guardian during the early
stages of a case places vulnerable children at risk. The provision
of only a lawyer for the child is inadequate and goes against
the tandem-representation principle enshrined in the Children
Act 1989—a principle which is the envy of many other jurisdictions.
We have had reports that sometimes, in some
areas frequently, no guardian is appointed in applications for
secure accommodation.
We acknowledge the sterling efforts of children's
lawyers, CAFCASS managers, court staff (both legal and administrative)
District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) and lay magistrates in doing
their best to ensure that children are safe.
Inner London has experienced some of the greatest
effect of the on-going staff shortages. Even now, when CAFCASS
states that the situation is starting to improve, waiting times
for allocation of a guardian can be up to 12 weeks. There is a
priority list for the allocation of a guardian, those cases on
it usually have a guardian allocated within four weeks. Other
cases get transferred to the list after eight weeks. The Inner
London Family Proceedings Court has 56 cases (as at 12 March)
awaiting the appointment of a guardian. We understand that the
workload of this court represents approximately 7% of the total
for the country. We accept that London has specific problems with
recruitment and retention, but many other areas of the country
report significant delays also. In private law applications, an
acceptable service is offered in most cases, albeit that it is
typical that a court will wait 12 weeks for a report, even on
a narrowly-focused issue. The timetable is driven by availability
of CAFCASS resources rather than the needs of children.
2. To improve the services offered to the
family courts.
Since it is clear by its own admission that
CAFCASS is unable to deliver against its core requirements, then
that is where it should be focussing—not on improving and
expanding services, laudable though that aspiration is. CAFCASS
has consistently failed to maintain the level of service that
existed before the amalgamation and creation of the new service
took place.
Inner London is currently discussing the provision
of a duty guardian at court. This is a welcome proposal when there
seems to be no end in sight to the delays in the appointment of
guardians; it would assist the court in being able to progress
cases in their early stages when guardians have not yet been allocated.
This idea should also be explored in other metropolitan areas
where workload would justify it.
3. To improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the services offered through increased value for money.
We are concerned about value for money in a
cash-limited service taking precedence over the needs of vulnerable
children. It is much easier to measure hours spent per case and
look to set targets to move everyone down to the lowest figure
recorded—it is much harder to measure what effect that would
have on the quality of the work. It is vital that the promotion
of best, and not cheapest, practice is a key measure.
We have heard that there are some in senior
levels within CAFCASS who question whether all public law Children
Act cases should have a guardian appointed. We believe that the
number that could be excluded in this way would be so small as
to have no measurable impact on the workload of the service. In
any case if such a move were to happen it must be a judicial and
not a service-provider decision.
4. To improve the services offered to families
and other key stakeholders.
See response to item 2. At its launch, much
was made of the addition of the second S in the acronym CAFCASS.
It was a visionary aspiration towards which we have seen no development.
5. To develop the skills of staff.
We have heard many reports of low morale and
lack of integration between former Guardians ad Litem and Court
Welfare Officers. Recruitment and workload difficulties have also
meant the use of inexperienced guardians and led to lack of time
for and supervision of, skill development and crossover training.
Loss of more experienced guardians is exacerbating this situation.
Significant numbers of these very experienced guardians were self-employed
and decided against joining the new service, but are still out
there. Urgent moves should be made to find ways of continuing
to utilise their competence in the short term to affect both skills
transfer and the backlog—in some areas agency staff have
been employed, and this should be extended wherever viable.
6. To play a role in delivering the wider
Government agenda of improvements in service.
See response to item 2.
The Magistrate's Association
March 2003
| 
