Written evidence from Janet Hayes (FC
58)
THE OPERATION OF THE FAMILY COURTS
Having watched on television the Justice Committee
hearing evidence (16 November 2010) on Family Courts I was disappointed
by the quality of information given to you.
In my experience of 20 years as a CAFCASS officer
[formerly Court Welfare] until my retirement this year, in ALL
cases where the Court requested reports, children's views were
sought in both private and public proceedings in an age appropriate
way by myself and my colleagues. Children, however may well experience
their views as not being heard as Courts may not always follow
their expressed wishes for reasons of safety or what is assessed
as undue pressure from the residential parent. In private law
I have numerous examples of children changing their minds, or
becoming more willing to express their true views once the residential
parent has decided to promote contact or they have met their estranged
parent.
Paradoxically, a system at my court where children
over the age of nine were brought to court to have a private meeting
with a CAFCASS Officer at the first hearing in all private law
applications is now being discouraged by CAFCASS. This system
often led to an early resolution of matters once both parents
heard their children's views and avoided any further Court process.
Most importantly and problematically, as Dr Harne
stated CAFCASS has now become a safeguarding agency to which its
traditional role of reporting to courts has been subordinated.
In my view this fundamental but little recognised shift is the
key to understanding CAFCASS current failures.
It is now the case that every application coming
before the courts is police and social services checked whereas
in the past checks were made in cases where welfare concerns were
identified. The consequence of this has been a dramatic increase
in bureaucracy often undertaken by agency staff which has diverted
resources from the task of report writing.
From these checks CAFCASS Officers are now required
to prepare reports on risk as a paper exercise never having met
the child or parents. This work has meant that considerably fewer
staff are able to undertake face to face assessments for the courts
thus creating inordinate delays for children who are thought to
be vulnerable or at risk. Ironically therefore a system that attempts
to promote the safety of children has had in practice the opposite
effect.
November 2010
| 
