I'm confused, what "established body of knowledge" is social work based on?
What established body of knowledge is social work based on in relation to the following:
1) domestic violence;
2) coercive control;
3) alienating behaviours;
4) violence and aggression;
5) child psychology and development;
6) that male perpetrators of DV use the argument of PA to deflect blame (so far as I am aware, there is no estalished body of knowledge which supports such pseudoscientific theories yet Cafcass by their own admission admit to relying on such theories).
I regularly see Cafcass Family Court Advisors (who are merely social workers) saying, I will make recommendations based on my "professional expertise".
Sir McFarlane, the President of the Family Division states in Re C:
The Family Court adopts a rigorous approach to the admission of expert evidence.
As the references in this memorandum make plain, pseudo-science, which is not
based on any established body of knowledge, will be inadmissible in the Family
Court.’
I don't understand how Cafcass are being allowed to give their professional opinion on matters such as those in points 1-5 above, because it is inadmissible as evidence pursuant to Re C. Cafcass are being allowed to introduce pseudoscience based on discredited social theories from women's rights activists and women's aid federtation, but the High Court has made clear any such evidence is inadmissible.
Surely, in light of the law set out in Re C, Cafcass are now only permitted by law to inform the Court, this case raises issue of "coercive control" and make a recommendation that the court should instruct an expert who has expertise on the established body of knowledge in that area and then for the Court to list the matter for a finding of fact hearing so the court can make it's determination.
If they over step that mark, surely they can be challenged as being illogocal / inadmissible and their evidence thrown out / appealed on a point of law?
I looked online for the established body of knowledge that social work is based on and what I found seems to support the argument that social work is based on discredited social theories / pseudoscience rather than reputable evidence based scientific research:
"The main perspectives include anti-oppressive/anti-discriminatory perspectives, anti-racist, children’s rights, feminist, radical/progressive/activist, social model of disability, service users/carers’ perspective—and so forth."
I'm struggling to see how allowing pseudoscience evidence from Cafcass that is inadmissible doesn't breach the Principle of Equality of Arms and the right to a fair trial?
Am I missing something, surely solicitors are under a duty to bring this procedural irregularity to the Court's attention, because the SRA Code of Conduct states:
"You draw the court's attention to relevant cases and statutory provisions, or procedural irregularities of which you are aware, and which are likely to have a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings."
The Courts go along with the Cafcass recommendation in the majority of cases, so if Cafcass introduce evidence that is inadmisslbe, that would seem to meet the test of having a material effect on the outcome of proceedings. Surely any solicitor who values their practising certificate, should be bringing these procedural irregularities to the Court's attention unless I am missing something?
What established body of knowledge is social work based on in relation to the following:
1) domestic violence;
2) coercive control;
3) alienating behaviours;
4) violence and aggression;
5) child psychology and development;
6) that male perpetrators of DV use the argument of PA to deflect blame (so far as I am aware, there is no estalished body of knowledge which supports such pseudoscientific theories yet Cafcass by their own admission admit to relying on such theories).
I regularly see Cafcass Family Court Advisors (who are merely social workers) saying, I will make recommendations based on my "professional expertise".
Sir McFarlane, the President of the Family Division states in Re C:
The Family Court adopts a rigorous approach to the admission of expert evidence.
As the references in this memorandum make plain, pseudo-science, which is not
based on any established body of knowledge, will be inadmissible in the Family
Court.’
I don't understand how Cafcass are being allowed to give their professional opinion on matters such as those in points 1-5 above, because it is inadmissible as evidence pursuant to Re C. Cafcass are being allowed to introduce pseudoscience based on discredited social theories from women's rights activists and women's aid federtation, but the High Court has made clear any such evidence is inadmissible.
Surely, in light of the law set out in Re C, Cafcass are now only permitted by law to inform the Court, this case raises issue of "coercive control" and make a recommendation that the court should instruct an expert who has expertise on the established body of knowledge in that area and then for the Court to list the matter for a finding of fact hearing so the court can make it's determination.
If they over step that mark, surely they can be challenged as being illogocal / inadmissible and their evidence thrown out / appealed on a point of law?
I looked online for the established body of knowledge that social work is based on and what I found seems to support the argument that social work is based on discredited social theories / pseudoscience rather than reputable evidence based scientific research:
"The main perspectives include anti-oppressive/anti-discriminatory perspectives, anti-racist, children’s rights, feminist, radical/progressive/activist, social model of disability, service users/carers’ perspective—and so forth."
I'm struggling to see how allowing pseudoscience evidence from Cafcass that is inadmissible doesn't breach the Principle of Equality of Arms and the right to a fair trial?
Am I missing something, surely solicitors are under a duty to bring this procedural irregularity to the Court's attention, because the SRA Code of Conduct states:
"You draw the court's attention to relevant cases and statutory provisions, or procedural irregularities of which you are aware, and which are likely to have a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings."
The Courts go along with the Cafcass recommendation in the majority of cases, so if Cafcass introduce evidence that is inadmisslbe, that would seem to meet the test of having a material effect on the outcome of proceedings. Surely any solicitor who values their practising certificate, should be bringing these procedural irregularities to the Court's attention unless I am missing something?
