Written evidence submitted by the Family
Courts' Unions Cross Party Group
(FC 37)
We are writing on behalf of the Family Court Unions
Cross-Party Group in light of the Justice Committee's inquiry
into the operation of the family courts.
As you may be aware, the Family Court
Unions Cross-Party Group comprises over 50 MPs and Peers from
all parties and meets together with the unions (PCS, NAPO) on
a regular basis to discuss issues concerning the family courts
system. In the past we have hosted meeting with ministers and
Anthony Douglas (Chief Executive, CAFCASS), with whom we developed
a constructive dialogue underlined by a mutual commitment to ensuring
CAFCASS is able to achieve the goals and aims it has been set.
There is concern felt within the Group that the welfare
checklist used by practitioners to determine issues concerning
the best interest of the child has been lost in favour of CAFCASS
Five outcomes. We are aware that numbers of experienced staff
are leaving CAFCASS and note the relevant inexperience of those
who are being recruited. We have been informed that there is a
feeling amongst staff that they are over managed and that there
had been a sharp increase in the number of new service managers,
often at the expense of the frontline. In addition, we have apprehensions
regarding the affects that the constant restructuring of CAFCASS
is having on staff morale and service delivery.
In addition the Group is alarmed by the Ministry
of Justice's publication (23 June 2010) of consultation papers
setting out proposals to close 103 magistrate's courts and 54
county courts (closing 15 September). This proposal - which amounts
to almost a third of courts across the UK facing closure and around
1,000 jobs being at risk - at a time when the sector is already
under strain from inadequate resources, soaring workloads and
low moral, will be a significant blow to service delivery.
In particular, the impact on family justice will
be significant and as, most simply, the reduction in the number
of courtrooms available for family cases will lead to people having
to travel to more distant locations and delay in hearing their
case.
It is therefore our view that the family courts system
is facing an unprecedented crisis in terms of workloads, resources
and morale. As a consequence we believe that child protection
issues are potentially being compromised. We believe that this
deteriorating situation is not helped by the change in attitude
by managers, caused arguably by demands from Ofsted, that practitioners
change to devote most of their time to keeping records on files
rather than seeing children.
I understand that Napo and PCS have submitted documents
for the consideration of the Committee, which we believe to be
detailed and valuable documents.
September 2010
| 
