Written evidence submitted by Veronica
J Swenson, children's guardian (CAF 30)
I have worked with children and families in
transition for all of my professional life and in the Family Courts
for 22 years, first as a Family Court Welfare Officer and then
as a Guardian ad Litem (now a Children's Guardian). I have extensive
involvement in social work education, training and professional
development.
KEY OBJECTIVE
1: TO REPRESENT,
SAFEGUARD AND
PROMOTE THE
WELFARE OF
CHILDREN
Extract from my open letter to Mr. Tross, of
notice to discontinue work as a Children's Guardian (dated 7 April
2003):
". . . I looked forward to the advent
of a combined service. . . Instead I have witnessed under-funding
of the organisation, centralisation, the burgeoning growth of
management and the emergence of a culture that derides professional
accountability and independent advocacy.
"CAFCASS has publicly espoused some of
the explicit values (such as the child's right to be heard) but
has failed to put into practice the principles (such as the professional
development and support of safe, competent, personally-accountable
practitioners) vital to its services. The simultaneous wastage
of public funds in the organisation and starving of vital resources
in the services have impoverished the service to children and
their families. The ethos, structure and governance of CAFCASS
render it incapable of reversing that trend to anything beyond
a superficial degree.
"I have watched with dismay the steady
erosion of the role of Children's Guardian as welfare advocate
for some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and of
the tandem (legal and social-work) representation of children
that has been the envy of other jurisdictions.
Some notable examples of this are the failure
to appoint Children's Guardians at the commencement of cases and
attempts to dilute the roles and responsibilities of the Children's
Guardian by dispensing with the attendance of CAFCASS officers
at directions hearings, or at hearings at which "Findings-of-Fact"
will be made. There could hardly be more potent evidence of CAFCASS'
ignorance of (or disregard for) the key role played by a Children's
Guardian in the early stages of proceedings and throughout the
case.
"The influence of a single, independent
childcare expert to review the proposals and circumstances of
the individual child, and to identify the welfare issues that
distinguish his or her interests from those of the adult parties,
must be provided at the commencement of proceedings. That cannot
wait until the child's name reaches the top of a waiting list
and it cannot wait until the local court finds an economical "slot"
for a directions hearing. Nor can it be provided by the child's
solicitor, who has a vital, but entirely distinct, role.
"For many months, solicitors from the Law
Society's Children Panel have been appointed to represent children
for whom no Children's Guardian is available. The view that to
have the legal aspect of tandem representation without the welfare
aspect is better than to have neither, has generally prevailed.
However, some solicitors are unwilling to be appointed in the
absence of a Children's Guardian, unless the child concerned is
competent to give his or her own instructions. A Notice to solicitors
on the "Children Panel", issued by the Law Society in
September 2002, conveys the dilemmas for the individual solicitor
in every such case. Guidance to Children Panel solicitors, issued
by the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC), urges solicitors
to seek funding for an independent (social work) expert and to
challenge refusals of such funding. It states that "the ALC
does not see why children should be put unnecessarily at risk
by two different sections of the same government department".
"I note with interest the resolution subsequently
passed unanimously by the Association of Lawyers for Children
at its conference on 14 to 16 November 2002, thus: "The ALC
is gravely concerned that the representation of children in Family
Proceedings has deteriorated and continues to deteriorate as a
result of serious problems with CAFCASS including substantial
underfunding. As a result, children's welfare and rights are being
seriously prejudiced. The ALC calls upon the Government to remedy
this crisis as a matter of urgency."
Children, many of whom have already suffered
harm, can no longer be provided with robust, independent representation
at the outset of legal proceedings. Already, one infant has died
whilst he was the subject of an application by the local authority
for a Supervision Order. He did not have a Children's Guardian,
but his name was on a waiting list for one. Lawyers for two other
children have sought leave from the High Court to apply for Judicial
Review of CAFCASS failure in their cases, which have proceeded
to conclusion without a Children's Guardian being appointed at
all."
"Such examples contravene Article 12 of
the European Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 6
and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the statutory duties of
CAFCASS in specified proceedings. They are also avoidable, shameful,
and can lead to tragedy. . . ."
"CAFCASS, far from promoting the human
rights of the most disenfranchised children and their families,
has utterly neutralised its own potential to deliver those rights
more effectively, both now and in the future."
"I have witnessed the degradation of professional
standards in two services to which I have been proud to belong.
I have come to the view that CAFCASS, as it is presently constituted,
compromises the very values and principles that are its raison
d'etre. I cannot, with any professional conscience, continue as
a Children's Guardian with CAFCASS."
KEY OBJECTIVE
2: IMPROVE THE
SERVICES OFFERED
TO THE
FAMILY COURTS
Lawyers and members of the judiciary have begun
to recognise the dangerous effects of current CAFCASS policies
and practice. As their confidence in the advice given to the courts
in children"s cases decreases, cases will be delayed, more
expert opinion will be required, costs will increase.
KEY OBJECTIVE
3: VALUE FOR
MONEY
Poor professional development is not a saving,
but a misuse, of scarce public money.
The projected cost for the framework (see key
objective 5 below) was £31k. About £5k was spent on
it. What has CAFCASS spent on Induction development in the two
years since? *(See 5 below) These were the only costings ever
produced for an integrated training strategy.
KEY OBJECTIVE
5: DEVELOP THE
SKILLS OF
STAFF, INDUCTION
TRAINING
In 2000 to 2001 the CAFCASS Project Team was
provided with the start of an integrated Induction Training Programme
that:
— Was agreed by all concerned to require
six to 10 days
— Applied the work of the Training
and Accreditation task Team that had provided two reports with
clear recommendations (including what it would cost, in direct
expenditure AND in staff-training time to effect a proper training
programme).*
— Was based on explicit values and
principles and had clear, measurable learning outcomes.
— Was PQ compliant (using the Post
Qualifying Conceptual Framework and the National Occupational
Standards for Childcare at PQ level).
— Related to existing National Standards
for the GALRO service and was designed to reflect any other professional
(rather than operational) standards that followed.
— Had an integrated approach to DIVERITY
and anti-discriminatory practice.
— Utilised the conceptual framework
of the Framework for Assessment of Children in Need and their
Families.
— Was the result of cross-disciplinary
work (private and public law practitioners, managers).
— Was commissioned by Arran Poyser,
then responsible for the GALRO service at the DoH and a full member
of the CAFCASS Project Team.
— Utilised "Paramount Welfare
. . ."—commonly acknowledged by all involved from relevant
agencies to be the only comprehensive induction training programme.
— Applied the excellent work done by
ACOP Midlands region on anti-discriminatory practice in training.
— Had the overall objectives of providing
for the safe, competent practitioner and of establishing a cornerstone
for a valid (priced and costed) system of Continuing Professional
Development for CAFCASS practitioners.
The next step for that project, planned for
February 2001, was a consultation with managers, key personnel
and stakeholders on the "Framework". The Project was
halted in January 2001, as soon as Arran Poyser had left his post.
It was never resumed.
Subsequent attempts to create an induction-training
programme have not utilised any of the above. The Induction training
recently described as a "trip around the bay . . ."
is now acknowledged by CAFCASS not to be professional training
at all, but familiarisation with the organisation—CAFCASS.
CAFCASS is currently seeking four or five more consultants to
"roll out" the existing programme and to develop a "PQ
route".
Royal Holloway College has recently agreed to
provide professional training modules. These will therefore not
be the responsibility of anyone within the organisation and there
will still not be the promised, and vital, professional development
stream of activity within CAFCASS.
CAFCASS has still failed to deliver a set of
professional standards and is working to the old standards for
the Guardian Service.
Extract from open letter of notice to discontinue
. . . (dated 4 July 2003)
"Thank you for your letter of 27 September
2002. In it you acknowledged . . .analysis, on behalf of representatives
of the relevant professional associations, of what was needed
in CAFCASS in relation to information, knowledge and professional
development.
"You expressed hope in your letter that
`we are now on an upward path' and list several developments in
the areas of communication, training development, practice development
and dissemination of research. Unfortunately I do not share your
optimism. With the exception of collation of research, recent
evidence of CAFCASS" activity points, in my view, to the
contrary . . ..
"My involvement in the development of training
and of professional standards has been substantial. It included
commissioning and editing the `Paramount Welfare: National
Induction Training for the Guardian Service' published by
the Department of Health in 1997. It also included co-coordinating
a multi-disciplinary group that was commissioned by the CAFCASS
Project Team to devise a framework for induction training. That
framework would have been completed by March 2001, but was . .
. jettisoned along with much of the work done by `Task Teams'
. . . and professional groups prior to vesting day."
"CAFCASS" track record in relation
to training and professional development should be open to public
enquiry. To mention just one alarming, recent example: The latest
attempt at an "Induction Training Course" fails to distinguish
between the discrete functions of robust independent scrutiny
(identifying and protecting children's interests) and of helping
parties move toward agreement (settling adults' disputes). This
typifies the confused, bungling way in which CAFCASS conflates
professional roles. It is dangerous and could well result in practitioners,
without an adequate foundation in either function, brokering the
non-negotiable—a child's safety from harm."
Extract from letter sent to Mr Tross on 23 July
2002 on behalf of all Professional Associations in CAFCASS (AFCWO,
The CAFCASS Managers Association, NAGALRO, NAPO and SalGAL)
Re: Professional Associations, Communications
and Professional Development
" . . . representatives of the Professional
Associations met with you on 15 April this year . . . discussed
communications, information, research etc. in the professional
domain of CAFCASS."
"We are pleased to note . . . subsequent,
relevant developments including, it seems, the temporary appointment
of staff" . . . We have heard, indirectly, that there is
to be a meeting today. Is that the "Training and Development
Steering Group", promised in the Corporate Plan and due to
convene by June 2002? Will it . . . involve the Professional Associations?
". . . agreed that there were deficits
across the field of professional development and the minutes duly
recorded that "Jonathan made a request for help, from the
professional associations represented, for a specification from
our experience of what staff within CAFCASS ought to know. He
said that we were better placed than HQ to identify what would
be helpful."
". . . conclusion of that meeting you repeated
that the capacity, experience and knowledge to provide what was
needed did not lie at headquarters" and we agreed that "Best
practice has to be based on practitioner experience, informed
by research and knowledge from outside" . . . asked . . .
to provide you with a list of "what we need, and where it
is to be found" . . .
". . . We have produced the enclosed document
(below) on the issues and a possible way forward . . . kept the
document brief . . . not composed long lists . . . we would consider
that a simplistic and inappropriate approach . . ."
FULL COPY
OF ACCOMPANYING
ANALYSIS OF
WHAT IS
NEEDED
GOOD PRACTICE
AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT: INFORMATION
AND RESOURCES
REQUIRED BY
CAFCASS PRACTITIONERS
1. Professional Information, Knowledge and
Resources
1.1 We want to emphasise the distinctions
between Information and Knowledge, and particularly between:
— Communications, which are primarily
concerned with the Organisation; and
— Professional Information, Resources
and Knowledge, which are primarily concerned with the Service
and its professional functions:
1.2 Practitioners need access to both information
and knowledge in order to perform their professional tasks, but
we are mainly concerned with the Professional Knowledge that is
an essential requirement of the competent, safe practitioner.
This encompasses the entire corpus of research, law, policy, theory
and method.
1.3 A practical example of the distinction
might be that: A report is issued by the Children Act Sub-Committee
of the Advisory board on Family Law, dealing with Contact cases:
The information to practitioners is simply that the document is
available: the resource/knowledge might include; an informed assessment
of its relevance, an objective synopsis, promotion of professional
debate, modification of policy or procedures, provision of training
. . . (see point 3 below)
2. WHAT IS
NEEDED
2.1 information and resources are best identified
by use of broad categories that recognise the socio-legal nature
of CAFCASS activity and cover the following areas:
— legislation, guidance, rules:
— case law and precedents, President's
practice directions etc.
— policy statements and circulars,
from the LCD, Department of Health etc.
— CAFCASS policy and practice guidance;
— Local Authority Social Services Departments
information, "Dear Director" letters etc.
— research findings and messages from
research;
— broader developments (for example
the Adoption Review, initiatives such as Quality Protects, the
evolution of multi-disciplinary responses to domestic violence,
and others that set the context within which CAFCASS works); and
— professional and practice issues,
covering relevant topics and themes (for example: substance abuse
and parenting; black children in white families; domestic violence
and contact).
3. HOW CAFCASS
MIGHT ACHIEVE
THIS
3.1 Professional development needs to be
identified as a distinct and vital stream of CAFCASS activity.
It needs to be properly resourced and to be integrated into the
organisation at every level
3.2 CAFCASS needs a coherent professional
development strategy, alongside its corporate plan. That strategy
must be owned by the whole organisation.
3.3 This professional development activity
requires a central structure and an infrastructure to support
it. That is most likely to be achieved by establishing dedicated,
properly resourced, units to deal with professional development
and training, and with research.
3.4 The provision of information, resources
and knowledge must be based on a professional model that positively
recognises the wealth of knowledge and skills contained at practitioner
level in CAFCASS. The expertise and canon of knowledge held by
(senior) practitioners, and by researchers, would be used to determine
what is valid, useful, necessary and likely to contribute to the
development of best practice.
3.5 CAFCASS needs to recognise, and to
promote, the contributions of the professional associations, internet
groups and organs of communication including professional journals.
4. EXAMPLES
4.1 Representatives of the professional
associations met with Jonathon Tross on 15 April 2002. We agreed
to collate some examples . . . On reflection, we believe it impossible
to do credit to the comprehensive task outlined above by creating
what amount to a few lists . . . examples we can contribute at
a later stage . . . ends
The above extracts/documents reflect Mr. Tross
personal recognition of deficits and expressed intentions to utilise
the knowledge, skills and expertise of the professional base.
Sadly, they also reflect:
— Continuing failure to realise that
intention;
— Conflation of "research and
knowledge" with "training and professional development";
— proven track record of inability
to identify the professional development requirements of the practitioners
and the service;
— persistent emphasis on the requirements
of the organisation; and
— contracting of external, temporary
consultants to undertake ill-defined pieces of work which are
impossible to integrate into the service.
See also "CAFCASS Training and Accreditation
. . ." by Paddle A and Swenson V. in Seen and Heard Vol 10
Issue 4 200. p 42
KEY OBJECTIVE
6: THE WIDER
GOVERNMENT AGENDA
NOTE ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
— The inception of CAFCASS offered
an important opportunity for development and improvement here.
I believed that greater synthesis between the work in "public"
and "private" family law would end some of the false
dichotomies and lead to much-needed coherence in the development
of good practice in cases featuring domestic abuse. That opportunity
has been wasted by CAFCASS, which does not even disseminate the
information and developments emanating from other parts of the
Lord Chancellor"s Department.
— Family Court Reporters are key workers
in contact cases where domestic abuse is an issue. One Greater
Manchester Private Law manager has estimated that 70% to 90% of
inner city cases have a Domestic Violence component. There are
pockets of very good practice and professional development, but
CAFCASS has made no contribution to that and there is not consistency.
The false dichotomy between domestic abuse between adults and
parenting or childcare still pertains in some areas. A "trip
around the bay" will not make for safe practise.
— See NAGALRO's Responses to the Children
Act Sub-Committee"s consultation on "Contact between
Children and Violent Parents . . ." (document available on
request) and to the Recommendations in "Making Contact Work
. . . (Seen and Heard Vol 12 Issue 2. 2002)
The LCD"s approach to Domestic Violence has
led to not even so much as a statement of intent from CAFCASS
and could hardly be less "joined up".
Veronica Swenson
| 
