Talk:Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Role of CAFCASS
Given that the UK Conservative Party has announced that it will scrap CAFCASS if it gets into power, the various contoversies surround CAFCASS, the recent resignation of it entire board, nd the delaythat use of CAFCASS itself introdes itothpoces of resolving child residence disputes, etc., it might be worth spicing this article up bit. (It's worth looking at its history pages in this regard). One comment that I thought well reflected the systemic problem of CAFCASS's role (which was made by Tony Coe of the Equal Parenting Coalition) was that CAFCASS can be likened to a fire brigade that upon arrival at a fire sits and makes a report about it. Obviously the conclusion of each report is that [[the building has burnt down. If CAFCASS was not merely a court reporting device then it could be instrumental in helping to resolve problems rather than merely watching them get worse. Matt Stan 11:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Addressing the errors
CAFCASS was formed by the combining of the Guardian ad Litem Panels, managed by local authorities and the Court Welfare Service, managed by the Probation Service. CAFCASS officers act on behalf of children in providing advice to the courts. Whether the transfer of responsibilities from local to national control, in the form of the Lord Chancellors Department, was appropriate is open to question and it has certainly created many problems. However, the criticisms made in the article are wrong in both substance and detail and are evidently designed to make a misleading political statement.
CAFCASS officers are not paid £100,000, rather they are paid approximately £25,000 to £30,000 in line with other members of the social work profession. Consequently there has not been, and will not be, any sensible argument in the European Court or elsewhere that 'Cafcass are abducting UK children from loving fathers for cash'. Furthmore, there has been no imprisonment, fine or any other legal judgment in respect of CAFCASS officers abducting children in Britain or anywhere else, as CAFCASS do not have the legal power to remove children (this power rests with the Local Authority and the NSPCC, subject to a court order, or the police, under their statutory power of police protection).
It should also be noted that the Family Law Act (as with the Children Act 1989) states that it is the child's welfare that is paramount and not the child's mental health. Whether contact is in a child's best interest is a decision made according to the circumstances of each individual case and a court order. If the author checked their facts (which I'm sure they have no interest in doing), they would find that contact is awarded in the vast majority of cases, even when concerns have been expressed for the child's safety.
If Wikipedia is to have any credibility, misleading articles such as this should be removed as soon as possible, as they act only to scare, misinform and promote a narrow political cause. Finally, I should add that I am not and never have been a CAFCASS officer, but do work in the field of child welfare.--JimBean 12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Controversy"
I have removed various parts of this section and renamed it Criticism of CAFCASS. Given the nature of the statements they should be referenced in order to be verifiable. Some look just plain inaccurate. Referencing and verifiability of such material is a key part of making Wikipedia an effective encyclopedia. Paulleake 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The way I view CAFCASS is contact will be awarded until the child IS hurt? Then it is too late?
[edit] To the Anon
Please provide some sources for some of your claims of what CAFCASS is doing wrong. The reason the page has been semi-protected is you do not give any verfiable sources at all and a lot of the the things there are personal opinions and and facts. Sasquatch t|c 18:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
