UPDATED: Open Letter to Anthony Douglas CEO of Cafcass

7 Responses

  1. Chris says:

    Amazing letter. Strength in numbers . Yes they are incompetent it needs to change and actually the kids need to be thought of more . This organisation disgusts me

  2. kurtis howard says:

    We need to go straight to the organ Grinder.Cafcass are just a plastic organisation to plug a hole .As a Probation company they double up as so called child experts .Its like asking a Bricklayer to diversify as Dentists.We need to have men’s issues represented in the women’s equality party in parliament.Until we take on the feminazi and their off shoot Women’s Institute Corporation ,we have little chance of changing this instutanal sexism and the biased organisations they have their dirty hands all over

  3. Shaun baker says:

    I made a mistake now my children must suffer thanks

  4. Bee says:

    The law society is the tide that needs to change. Their reluctance to expose these rushed S7 and S20 reports that affect the lives of our children as nothing more than the ill informed view of a FCA or SW without any shred of appropriate training in psychology is tragic.

  5. Michael Judd says:

    The legal fraternity will not change as it will demolish their family law practice. They win representing either side but the honest truth is it is easy to make false allegations and this leads to PA. If courts and police disuasded people by imposition of sanctions for such behaviour early it would send a clear message. Keep the pressure on Cafcass as the court would be so my h more effective if FCA’s were competent and unbiased.

  6. Kenneth Lane says:

    Cafcass appear to be ‘stuck’ in the mindset that conflict is bad for the child thus there can be no ‘contact’ – when the only dispute between the parents more usually amounts to little other than a dispute over child arrangements, specifically how to apportion a childs time.
    Unlike other countries that have a benchmark or framework setting out what the norms of child arrangements in the median case Cafcass & the family courts have nothing.
    Their benchmark is ‘indirect contact’ or contact centre time handed out routinely regardless of any wrongdoing.
    Cafcass needs proper guidelines and training in the main area of its work; or, to be disbanded for procedural neglect and for failing the welfare of children it purports to represent.

  7. Will Kiel says:

    The immediate solution should be that the initial arrangement is a genuine 50:50 split. Unless there is Proven Harm in doing so.

    If one parent due to work or their situation cannot manage this initially then they can over time make arrangements to facilitate it. This is what the children want in the majority of cases. There are numerous solutions for this arrangement. 5,5,2,2, split weeks, alternate weeks I have even heard of alternate nights working well. There would therefore be no need to go to the law (hence why the legal profession is so averse to a solution that should work). At present if a father gets 50/50 they feel that they have won and if the mother gets less than 90/10 they feel they have lost.

    If society knew 50/50 was the norm then it would become the norm. The children would know immediately what the arrangements were to be and that the parent who initially could not manage this would let the children know they were making arrangements for what they could manage and future plans to increase this further towards 50/50. The children would realise they were loved equally by both parents and both parents were equally able to look after them. If one parent alienated the child from the other parent, the child would have a large period of time to realise that the other parent is not this ogre that the alienator is describing and this could eventually go against the alienator who would hopefully amend their actions.

    Too many times have I seen amicable sensible child orientated separations turn to battle zones when the legal profession is enquired upon. As is often the case even in non conflicted separations that go to court the mother has been to lighthouse, is surrounded by advice from single mothers and been on the freedom programme (which validates that they must have been abused), the legal profession seems to seek out the more amenable parent and convince them to poor oil on trouble waters and give a little each time.

    This lost time with the children is never easy to get back once released and the intransigent parent is rewarded for their stubbornness. This reinforces their behaviour. Then the Beliefs of the CAFCASS officer come into play any they manipulate the information and ask leading question of the children. They ignore their wishes and leave the children feeling a lack of trust with the adults who profess to be looking after their best interests. They then use the excuse of lack of time or resources for not doing a proper job and not seeing the children with the father or considering their concerns. By allowing the continuing psychological abuse of the children they are complicit in child abuse and one day will hopefully pay the price for their actions. Only then will they undertake a fair and proper assessment of the children’s needs.

    In the meantime all that the parent who is being alienated against can do is watch their child become psychologically harmed. It is like watching a death by a thousand cuts. The more upset and annoyed they become about the lack of action by the system that professed the best interests of the child, the more they are fought against and the system closes ranks in the hope that they will just go away, or run out of money/energy. The parent is criticised for wanting more time with their child/children and made to feel they are unreasonable for requesting this.

    Unfortunately these damaged children will grow up as damaged adults with damaged family units of their own. The inaction of today is the time bomb of tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *