For the gatekeeping hearing Cafcass have advised that contact stays the same after I put in for a variation of hours . It's saying the application has no merit and asked for a 3 year barring order. Could it get thrown out before even going to a first hearing please has this happened to anyone before ?
Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 2 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
Cafcass safeguarding letter
- Thread starter michno8
- Start date
You've applied to vary an existing order? In what way exactly and on what grounds? A Family Court is not obliged to accept the advice of CAFCASS. It will make a decision based on all of the information it is presented with and in the best interests of the children involved.
Also, a Barring Order is not an absolute bar from making any future application, it simply means that there is a hurdle, i.e. the seeking of permission from the court, to overcome before being able to proceed to make an application.
Also, a Barring Order is not an absolute bar from making any future application, it simply means that there is a hurdle, i.e. the seeking of permission from the court, to overcome before being able to proceed to make an application.
Para 45: - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1443.html
"First, during the course of that process the children's guardian enjoys no special status relative to other witnesses before the court (MW v Hertfordshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 405 at [21] and [32]). The fact that the children's guardian is under a duty to advise the court the options available to it to make recommend what order should be made does not mean that the advice and recommendation of the children's guardian carries with it preferential, let alone determinative weight in the proceedings. The views of guardian, even when set out in a final analysis and recommendations report, are not binding on the court. At all times it is the application of the principles and factors set out in the Children Act 1989 s 1 to the totality of the evidence before the court that drives the court's conclusion as to what is in the child's best interests. There would be more force in mother's application if the court was bound to follow recommendations of the children's guardian or if the recommendations of the guardian carried preferential weight in the proceedings. However, neither of these propositions is sound."
Same reasoning would apply to Cafcass officer. They have no quasi-judicial function. Cafcass officers have no special status and have to be treat the same as any other witness. The only difference is, they are required to make recommendations to the Court. But the court is not bound to accept those recommendations.
The sorts of flaws to expose the Cafcass officer's recommendations as flawed are:
Assumptions affecting the recommendation were made which were, in fact, wrong.
The reasoning of the Cafcass officer is not logical or does not make sense based upon all of the evidence.
The Cafcass officer placed too much weight on some evidence, not enough weight on other evidence, or both.
The Cafcass officer stepped outside his/her competence and reached conclusions on matters falling outside his/her expertise; eg in relation to diagnoses of mental health conditions, in relation to recovery from substance abuse.
"First, during the course of that process the children's guardian enjoys no special status relative to other witnesses before the court (MW v Hertfordshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 405 at [21] and [32]). The fact that the children's guardian is under a duty to advise the court the options available to it to make recommend what order should be made does not mean that the advice and recommendation of the children's guardian carries with it preferential, let alone determinative weight in the proceedings. The views of guardian, even when set out in a final analysis and recommendations report, are not binding on the court. At all times it is the application of the principles and factors set out in the Children Act 1989 s 1 to the totality of the evidence before the court that drives the court's conclusion as to what is in the child's best interests. There would be more force in mother's application if the court was bound to follow recommendations of the children's guardian or if the recommendations of the guardian carried preferential weight in the proceedings. However, neither of these propositions is sound."
Same reasoning would apply to Cafcass officer. They have no quasi-judicial function. Cafcass officers have no special status and have to be treat the same as any other witness. The only difference is, they are required to make recommendations to the Court. But the court is not bound to accept those recommendations.
The sorts of flaws to expose the Cafcass officer's recommendations as flawed are:
Assumptions affecting the recommendation were made which were, in fact, wrong.
The reasoning of the Cafcass officer is not logical or does not make sense based upon all of the evidence.
The Cafcass officer placed too much weight on some evidence, not enough weight on other evidence, or both.
The Cafcass officer stepped outside his/her competence and reached conclusions on matters falling outside his/her expertise; eg in relation to diagnoses of mental health conditions, in relation to recovery from substance abuse.
Contact was 2 hrs supervised. Due to safeguarding concerns. These are no longer present. The court order had said in the near future for parties to attend mediation to discuss progression and to be less restrictive. However other parties have refused so I put in a c100. Where Cafcass was fed a lot of untruths and without checking facts put the advise forward to the court. Fortunately the initial gatekeeping hearing has been heard and the application was not withdrawn and a Fhdra has been ordered with just the parties to attend and has excluded Cafcass.