Written evidence submitted by self-employed
guardians serving Family Courts on Teesside (CAF 23)
Historically, the Tees-Hartlepool Panel of Guardians
ad Litem and Reporting Officers was well run on a basis of mutual
trust and respect. Guardians were treated well and were flexible
about helping out when there was a high demand for Guardian appointments.
There was rarely any delay at all in appointing a Guardian to
a case.
Nevertheless, self-employed Guardians on Teesside
had high expectations of CAFCASS, offering, as it did, a move
away from local authority administration and the prospect of a
unified, national service with uniformity of service delivery
in areas such as legal advice, information to users of the service,
professional development and practise guidance.
At the inception of CAFFCASS, all Guardians
on Teesside were self-employed. Unfortunately, CAFCASS, with very
little consultation with those it would affect, only offered a
self-employed contract. The contract was unacceptable to most
Guardians. Several left the service. The offer was judicially
reviewed and CAFCASS then offered a choice of employment or self-employment.
All remaining Teesside Guardians opted for self-employment.
On accepting self-employment. Guardians agreed
to a "clear blue water" concept which CAFCASS said was
designed to placate the Inland Revenue who were said to be concerned
about the status of Children's Guardians. The effect of this document,
along with nine new administrative forms (where one had sufficed
before) was to alienate and demoralise Guardians who were told,
for example, that they had to provide their own stationery, could
not have an identity card and would have to pay rent if they used
the CAFCASS premises. CAFCASS also said that they would not pass
on messages to Guardians from service users and professionals.
Additionally, the remaining Guardians were told
that they had to maintain a "mixed portfolio" of work
meaning that only about half should be Guardian work. Consequently,
Guardians took on private work which paid better rates and involved
less responsibility.
The overall effect of this policy has been to
produce a very substantial waiting list of children needing Guardians.
Cases can run for several months without a Guardian which means
that children are not property represented, cases take longer
and overall costs are increased.
As the waiting list continues to exist, the
responsibility for deciding which cases are most urgently in need
of a Guardian lies with two officers who have very little experience
of public law matters in general and of child protection in particular.
(Nationally two children have died whilst waiting for Guardians
to be appointed for them).
Pre-CAFCASS, Guardians participated in regular
in-house training and attended a number of regional and national
events and meetings. CAFCASS has made it clear that any training
undertaken by self-employed Guardians will be at their own expense
and in their own time.
Finally, pre-CAFCASS there were regular business
and staff-development meetings where expenses were paid. Self-employed
Guardians have had only three meetings with CAFCASS in the two
years of its operation If we did not organise our own meetings,
we would be further isolated and unsupported.
Debbie Bailey, Robin Carter, Paul Greenhalgh,
Nick Hashagan, Jean Hornby, Pamela Kipling, Bernard Molyneux,
Ron Murphy, Alex Scoffin, David Smith and Chris Wood
12 March 2003
| 
