Cafcass changing interim contact?

[blindex]

And yes, he has the kids 50/50. He claims they have been behaving differently with him and accuses mother of coaching them - the reason they are behaving differently (with both sides) is the total change to their lives. The mother wants them to see both parents and to coparent as best as possible but father still on war path, will not communicate, always talks about allegations and never about what is best for children.

My ex was able to build a case against me because the pandemic affected her mental health badly and this had a knock on impact on our children on top of what they had to put up with during that time. As my son struggled at school, she managed to have both the school and early help behind her (she alleged domestic abuse as the cause of his problematic behaviour) but even so I was able to persuade the judges that a FFH was not necessary. The judge ordered a welfare report first and asked Cafcass for their recommendation regarding the FFH.

There was a section 7 report and they made a similar recommendation, no FFH. Cafcass made some bizarre recommendations which the judge thankfully ignored in their most, but sadly for me I could not get a 50/50 arrangement, more like 35/65 which I'm still trying to argue in the upcoming final welfare hearing.

Judges are also cautious and I believe a good solicitor may advise that there should be a section 7 welfare report first and let Cafcass make the recommendation for a FFH or not.

Cafcass will then speak to the parties, school, social worker, etc, see any police disclosure and make a recommendation. They may not order a FFH, but they could very much limit the father's contact because of his behaviour and he may be in for a big shock. Cafcass could seriously recommend curtailing his time because it will be exposing the children to conflict.

 

[Brs1177]

My ex was able to build a case against me because the pandemic affected her mental health badly and this had a knock on impact on our children on top of what they had to put up with during that time. As my son struggled at school, she managed to have both the school and early help behind her (she alleged domestic abuse as the cause of his problematic behaviour) but even so I was able to persuade the judges that a FFH was not necessary. The judge ordered a welfare report first and asked Cafcass for their recommendation regarding the FFH.

There was a section 7 report and they made a similar recommendation, no FFH. Cafcass made some bizarre recommendations which the judge thankfully ignored in their most, but sadly for me I could not get a 50/50 arrangement, more like 35/65 which I'm still trying to argue in the upcoming final welfare hearing.

Judges are also cautious and I believe a good solicitor may advise that there should be a section 7 welfare report first and let Cafcass make the recommendation for a FFH or not.

Cafcass will then speak to the parties, school, social worker, etc, see any police disclosure and make a recommendation. They may not order a FFH, but they could very much limit the father's contact because of his behaviour and he may be in for a big shock. Cafcass could seriously recommend curtailing his time because it will be exposing the children to conflict.

Is that what would happen on a section 7? As they’ve already looked at all of those and said there are no safeguarding concerns in the initial letter? But I’m guessing you mean a section 7 could happen still?
Thanks.

 

[blindex]

The safeguarding letter is really a broad brush and to me a waste of time. I had Cafcass attending the FHDRA as well. Basically my safeguarding letter recommended a FFH, and the Cafcass officer at court told the judge I could not see my children in a contact centre even though no one had seen my evidence and having a clean record. For the safeguarding letter, Cafcass will briefly speak with the parties and that's it.
The judge ignored the Cafcass recommendation and ordered supervised interim contact at a contact centre.
My barrister argued that I wasn't against a FFH, but at that juncture Cafcass was better placed to make the recommendation following a section 7 report.
In the section 7, the Cafcass officer (or the local authority as the judge may order that the LA carries out the report) will speak with the children, will have a more in-depth conversation with the parents, will read the parties main statements, look at a Police and Local Authority disclosure, speak with the school etc. They will have a much better picture of the issues on the ground to then inform the judge.
The courts are doing all they can to avoid FFH because they do take a tremendous amount of time and the system is full to bursting. Plus there is a wide recognition that the process is so brutal that it does more harm than good for the children as parents are pitied against each other and any good will is soon vanquished...
The courts work on the principle of putting the minimal amount of effort to dispose of the case safely.

 

[Brs1177]

The safeguarding letter is really a broad brush and to me a waste of time. I had Cafcass attending the FHDRA as well. Basically my safeguarding letter recommended a FFH, and the Cafcass officer at court told the judge I could not see my children in a contact centre even though no one had seen my evidence and having a clean record. For the safeguarding letter, Cafcass will briefly speak with the parties and that's it.
The judge ignored the Cafcass recommendation and ordered supervised interim contact at a contact centre.
My barrister argued that I wasn't against a FFH, but at that juncture Cafcass was better placed to make the recommendation following a section 7 report.
In the section 7, the Cafcass officer (or the local authority as the judge may order that the LA carries out the report) will speak with the children, will have a more in-depth conversation with the parents, will read the parties main statements, look at a Police and Local Authority disclosure, speak with the school etc. They will have a much better picture of the issues on the ground to then inform the judge.
The courts are doing all they can to avoid FFH because they do take a tremendous amount of time and the system is full to bursting. Plus there is a wide recognition that the process is so brutal that it does more harm than good for the children as parents are pitied against each other and any good will is soon vanquished...
The courts work on the principle of putting the minimal amount of effort to dispose of the case safely.

That makes sense. It is all so stressful. Feel wrung out. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Ash]

If it was 50/50 and he really did believe there was some parental alienation going on, that could be managed with a 50/50 order. Unless the children refused to see him and then it would look like something was very wrong - one way or another. It means the children have two different lives - one with Mum, one with Dad - and any negativity would wear off within a day once they had been at the other house normally - if there was some kind of parental alienation going on. It would still be bad for the kids who would feel they had to compartmentalise and feel conflicted but it could be managed so their lives were ok at both homes.

So he is either a bit stupid or he genuinely believes the kids are being turned against him. I am not sure a fact find would prove parental alienation. He'd need to be asking for psychologists reports on both parents. I would also be concerned if my son started behaving differently and the parent/child relationship was being impacted. Children naturally want to see both parents and adapt very quickly to two separate homes and a parent in each. Both parents should be encouraging the children to enjoy the time with the other parent. So if they're not then I can understand why he would be suspicious that they were being somehow turned against him.

In what way is he saying their behaviour has changed? That's a bit vague - there are many kinds of behaviour. If they are rejecting him or refusing to speak then of course he's concerned.

Sometimes a parent doesn't even realise they are alienating. The most common situation there is when it's the other way round - eg the Dad had an affair and left and the Mother is an emotional wreck. The kids see the Mother like that and take sides - even if the Mother didn't intend that.

If they have witnessed arguments before separation as well they are no doubt confused about everything, but lets face it what parent hasn't let their feelings of anger known about the other parent - even if not directly to the kids, they pick it up.

I am not sure how, as a relative, you can know what's going on at Mum's house. Apologies if you do and are there a lot.

However I do think the best thing he could do is agree to a 50/50 "lives with both parents" order with defined dates, times and holidays and take it from there. And if there are further problems - eg the kids refusing to go then yes it would need to go back to court and yes the court would be looking at whether or not the Mother was fulfilling her obligations under the court order. Or "encouraging" the kids in this behaviour,

Kids don't refuse to see parents unless a) that parent is extremely dangerous and frightens them and they don't feel safe at all (and even then kids love even abusive parents) or b) the other parent is not being positive about the arrangements and saying - you're at Dads house tomorrow.

Because the argument is - kids have to go to school. If a Mother can't make a child go to school it's a failure of parenting. Because kids are brought up to know what they are doing and when, by parents.

 

[Ash]

But - he should just agree to the 50/50 order. Unless he feels something is very wrong.

 

[Brs1177]

If it was 50/50 and he really did believe there was some parental alienation going on, that could be managed with a 50/50 order. Unless the children refused to see him and then it would look like something was very wrong - one way or another. It means the children have two different lives - one with Mum, one with Dad - and any negativity would wear off within a day once they had been at the other house normally - if there was some kind of parental alienation going on. It would still be bad for the kids who would feel they had to compartmentalise and feel conflicted but it could be managed so their lives were ok at both homes.

So he is either a bit stupid or he genuinely believes the kids are being turned against him. I am not sure a fact find would prove parental alienation. He'd need to be asking for psychologists reports on both parents. I would also be concerned if my son started behaving differently and the parent/child relationship was being impacted. Children naturally want to see both parents and adapt very quickly to two separate homes and a parent in each. Both parents should be encouraging the children to enjoy the time with the other parent. So if they're not then I can understand why he would be suspicious that they were being somehow turned against him.

In what way is he saying their behaviour has changed? That's a bit vague - there are many kinds of behaviour. If they are rejecting him or refusing to speak then of course he's concerned.

Sometimes a parent doesn't even realise they are alienating. The most common situation there is when it's the other way round - eg the Dad had an affair and left and the Mother is an emotional wreck. The kids see the Mother like that and take sides - even if the Mother didn't intend that.

If they have witnessed arguments before separation as well they are no doubt confused about everything, but lets face it what parent hasn't let their feelings of anger known about the other parent - even if not directly to the kids, they pick it up.

I am not sure how, as a relative, you can know what's going on at Mum's house. Apologies if you do and are there a lot.

However I do think the best thing he could do is agree to a 50/50 "lives with both parents" order with defined dates, times and holidays and take it from there. And if there are further problems - eg the kids refusing to go then yes it would need to go back to court and yes the court would be looking at whether or not the Mother was fulfilling her obligations under the court order. Or "encouraging" the kids in this behaviour,

Kids don't refuse to see parents unless a) that parent is extremely dangerous and frightens them and they don't feel safe at all (and even then kids love even abusive parents) or b) the other parent is not being positive about the arrangements and saying - you're at Dads house tomorrow.

Because the argument is - kids have to go to school. If a Mother can't make a child go to school it's a failure of parenting. Because kids are brought up to know what they are doing and when, by parents.

Yes, this is the thing. They’re not refusing at all. They’re perfectly happy to go to his. We have a calendar etc that the older one uses to know when they’re going where (father has refused to use a calendar when they are with him, even though it has been suggested as a good strategy by school).
He has said they’ve used bad language, none of which is coming from our side and nothing bad is being said about him whatsoever.
I have been with the children every day they are with the mother so yes I know exactly what’s happening there.