Chaos at troubled court service puts children at risk
Following reports that CAFCASS (The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) may have to shed staff and has been forced to reduce costs by £4 million, the Shadow Minister for Children, Tim Loughton said:
"CAFCASS has been beset with problems since it was first established. News that it now has to reduce staff and costs in this way raises serious questions about its ability to protect vulnerable children.
"Conservatives have long been calling for the abolition of the service and a radical change in the way the Family Courts operate. I have written to the Minister for Children, Beverley Hughes, to demand clarification of the services' future.
"The Government has consistently ignored our warnings that CAFCASS is fundamentally flawed and far from being part of the solution to dealing with family disputes, has actually been part of the problem. If the Government is so convinced that CAFCASS can work and is so fundamental to their reforms, then it is bizarre that they are now looking to decimate it in this way.
"Rather than simply seeking to cut costs, the Minister should radically review the way the family justice system operates. It is time that the Government admitted defeat, and looked at making the changes to the courts system that families are crying out for."
ENDS
For further information, please contact Zoe Healy on 0207 984 8096
Notes to Editors
The Government's Contact and Adoption Bill, which is currently being debated, is based around the work of CAFCASS. If they are intending to make cuts in this way, it will dramatically affect their ability to deliver the aims of the Bill.
CAFCASS writes some 33, 000 reports each year on children whose families are going through divorce or separation. It is essential that cutting costs does not mean putting any of those children at risk.
Conservatives have proposed the following changes to the family Justice System:
We will introduce a legal presumption of co-parenting, and a right for both parents to be involved in the upbringing of their child. We would establish the principle of 'reasonable contact', which would ensure that both parents should have sufficient time to build and sustain a loving relationship with their child.
The abolition of CAFCASS and the fast tracking of cases of child safety.
An open and transparent court system. The need to protect the anonymity of children must remain, but some lifting of the cloak of secrecy would allow all those involved in the family courts to understand that it is working in the best interests of their children. The closed door policy of the family courts breeds suspicion and a culture of secrecy which does nothing to instil confidence in those using them.
Clear court-backed contact parenting time plans prepared by child development experts in conjunction with the judiciary to outline the range of beneficial post-separation parenting arrangements. These guidelines would allow parents to clearly understand the kind of contact orders the court is likely to impose in a range of scenarios, should they be unable to reach agreement. By adding certainty for parents at an emotionally raw and uncertain time and providing parents information on how judges were likely to rule in circumstances similar to their own, it would encourage them to agree out of court.
A compulsory dispute resolution and mediation process, prior to getting to court. Professionals, trained in mediation, would make parents aware of the emotional and financial costs of resorting to court. Court-approved mediators and facilitators would provide a stark explanation of the effects on the wellbeing of children, the length of time which litigation can take, and the financial implications to parents.
Family courts working to expert guidelines acknowledging that the child's needs are best served by 'frequent and continuous' contact with both parents.
©, Tim Loughton MP , 2005
