Annex 1
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND PRIVATE LAW CONTACT
APPLICATIONS—A CAFCASS CASE EXAMPLE
BACKGROUND TO
CASE STUDY
(family details have been changed to protect confidentiality)
Family:
|
| Jane Brown | Mother |
| Stuart Brown | Father |
| Christine | Twin daughter (DoB 03.05.99)
|
| David | Twin son (DoB 03.05.99)
|
| Darren | Son (DoB 10.08.03)
|
|
April—December 2006 Period of marriage break-up.
Stuart eventually convicted of three counts of Common Assault
and Section 2 Harassment, all committed during this period. Jane
and the children move into rented accommodation as Stuart refused
to leave the family home.
January 2007—Jane applied for residence
and prohibited steps.
February 2007—Court ordered a s7 welfare
report and Cafcass allocates case to children and family reporter
(C&FR).
Stuart still remanded in custody when C&FR first
interviewed him. He received a suspended sentence order with a
condition that he attends the Probation Service's Integrated Domestic
Violence Programme (IDAP). The court also made a restraining order,
which expires in February 2009.
March 2007—C&FR's first report recommended
supervised contact on the basis that the children wanted to see
him, the CC (local social work agency run on private basis) could
provide contact, and father was prepared to pay for it. C&FR
referred to Cafcass DV policy in the report and in particular
to the Sturge and Glaser prerequisites for contact.
April 2007—At the directions appointment
the above recommendation was agreed and contact started. There
were some difficulties between CC and father. The lead SW at CC
and the C&FR met with Stuart to try to iron out problems.
There continued to be friction between father and CC for various
reasons. Generally the children seemed to enjoy contact, which
was 2 hours once a fortnight.
June 2007—Mother reported a breach of
the restraining order, which involved the children. Soon after
this the younger child, Darren, refused to see his father and
was very upset when the CC workers came to collect him.
Stuart attended to see his Probation Officer as required.
The PO reports that he minimised the offences, continued to blame
the victim but was willing to engage in work he was doing with
him. He thought that until he started the group and was being
challenged by peers, there would be no real change. Unfortunately,
there was a delay in his being allocated to a group (which would
take the best part of a year to complete) and it was looking as
if December 2007 was the earliest he would start the programme.
The matter was reviewed at the end of June 2007, (Cafcass
addendum dated 24 June 2007) and C&FR attended the review.
The solicitors were already discussing contact moving to being
unsupervised when C&FR arrived at court. The recommendation
was, however, that C&FR could see no alternative to the continuation
of supervision. This was on the basis that nothing had changed
as regards father's attitude to his offending, victim blaming,
the forthcoming breach of the restraining order, to which he had
pleaded not guilty and was going to take to the Crown Court for
trial, and mother's opposition to unsupervised contact. She was
also very concerned about the things he says to the children during
contact even though it is supervised, as reported to her by the
worker from CC.
At the hearing the judge asked Cafcass to provide
another addendum concerning the children's wishes and feelings
for a contested hearing in August, given the younger child's recent
reluctance to see his father and one of the older twin's (Christine)
reluctance to see her father with the CC workers. Throughout the
hearing the Stuart interrupted, and was rude to Jane and her solicitor.
July 2007—The C&FR saw the children
and also undertook a supervised contact, which both children attended
and seemed to enjoy. The C&FR had some concerns, which she
included in her next addendum, about some things father said to
the children. In this addendum dated 27 July 2007 she went through
the Sturge and Glaser prerequisites again and indicated where
she thought there were any changes if any, and again recommended
that she could see no alternative to supervised contact.
Meanwhile Jane told the C&FR that she had issued
proceedings for an occupation order and a hearing date was set.
She said that he had stopped paying the mortgage, and had not
paid her any maintenance and was being obstructive with the CSA.
August 2007—Before the hearing the C&FR
discussed the situation in some detail with her manager, as she
was most concerned that there would be some pressure put on her
to agree to unsupervised contact in view of what had happened
at the previous hearing. The manager agreed that her approach
was consistent with Cafcass DV policy. (She says also re-read
the policy, Sturge and Glaser, the CASC guidelines and anything
else she could think of to give her backup for the contested hearing!)
When she arrived for the hearing the barristers were
in the process of arranging unsupervised contact. They asked if
her view was the same ie that contact should be supervised and
she said yes in principle. However, the manager at CC had now
informed her that Stuart had paid nothing of the £1,800 bill
he owed them and that until he had, they could not supervise any
more contact. The barristers' view therefore was that contact
had to be unsupervised as there was no alternative. The C&FR's
view was that as nothing had changed, father had "paid his
money and made his choice" ie that contact should not be
unsupervised simply because there was no practical alternative.
The barristers and the C&FR went before the judge
for an indication. He made it clear that he had grave concerns
about contact moving to unsupervised on the basis of the case
papers ie he broadly agree with Cafcass. He asked the mother's
barrister if Jane had freely agreed to the proposal that contact
should be unsupervised and she said yes. He ordered three unsupervised
contacts for three hours each. Obviously collection and return
were a problem as the parents could not meet and it was agreed
that the first handover should be at the Cafcass office and the
other two handovers at the local contact centre (agreed by the
contact centre organiser).
September 2007—Following the hearing,
the FCA made a child welfare (protection) referral to the local
authority because she feared the children were going to be at
risk during unsupervised contact. The response was a paper assessment
exercise, which found that mother was protecting the children
in a responsible manner so no need for further action.
There was then a further hearing, at which the FCA
was supported by her service manager. The DJ now hearing the case
expressed grave concerns and indicated that he had discussed the
case with a senior judge who happened to be sitting in the same
court that morning. The case was moved to the senior judge, who
eventually stated that there probably should be no unsupervised
contact until father has completed his IDAP (probation perpetrator
course). She also made a rule 9.5 order so that the children could
be active parties in the proceedings.
As a final twist, just before the hearing the FCA
was informed that Stuart (father) had been arrested on the Saturday
before the court hearing, for an assault against the children's
maternal grandfather who had accompanied the children and Jane
to the contact centre for the visit there.
| 
