Legally analyse the weakness’ of the CAFCAS System as identified through the ‘Harm Report 2020’. Ref UK case law, Oscola style, use footnotes, to legally analyse the affect & options for defence/recourse for mothers who claim domestic abuse that have their children removed through Cafcass/family courts citing ‘parental alienation’ as a perpetrators defence to domestic abuse as identified in the ‘Harm Report 2020. Identify why MoJ knowingly allows Cafcass/family courts to do this? Decisions to change residence made on opinion over evidence.
Through researching this paper a troubling potential loop hole in the recommendations has been uncovered. One of the recommendations within the Harm report, is the recommended possible cessation of parental involvement. ‘A review of the presumption of parental involvement in s.1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 is needed urgently in order to address its detrimental effects.’
This can be especially problematic for those families who have had a residence change from the primary caregiver (often Mothers’) to the non-resident parent (father). Unfortunately this is a point which can be open to exploitation by Cafcass.
Cafcass as identified in the Harm Report 2020, have promoted and prioritised the ‘pro-contact’ culture at all costs, with the non-resident parent, above allegations of domestic abuse &genuine reluctance & fear of children to visit their non-resident parent. The Harm report identifies a startling trend, Cafcass are family court appointed advisors, who have powers beyond reproach, tasked with being the voice of the children within the family courts.
‘The evidence from both research & submissions suggests that too often the voices of children go unheard or are muted in various ways where domestic abuse was raised.’ (Harm Report 2020).The Harm report identifies that Cafcass have deviated away from clearly echoing the voice/needs of the children & are repeatedly prioritising the voice/wishes of the father where domestic abuse was raised against him.
The British Crime survey highlights the gender-based nature of domestic abuse & coercive control, almost exclusively male to female partner violence. The recommendations of Cafcass, are very powerful & directly influences family court Judges who copy & paste Cafcass decisions excluding contradictory independent evidence.
It is alarming that Cafcass who are the voice of the children within family courts, repeatedly reinterpret & ignore the voices of children who raise concerns of domestic abuse & have fear/reluctance to visit their father.
Cafcass repeatedly minimise & ignore domestic abuse claims against fathers from children & mothers, is their agenda to promote ‘fathers4justice’ wishes above the best interest/safeguarding the children?
All efforts to completely cut the mother out from the children’s lives. Hence the Harms report recommendation of cessation of contact will likely be used against mothers who have lost custody of their children through Cafcass recommendations.
Cafcass cite ‘parental alienation’ against domestic abuse victims especially protective mothers; to influence family court judges to change residence of children & give them to the domestic abuser.
Children have been removed from protective primary caregivers primarily mothers, when Cafcass &fathers cite ‘parental alienation’ as a defence, to silence domestic abuse claims from children &mothers. The Harm report identifies the failings of Cafcass &makes recommendations, the Harm report is not an isolated report, many reports have been written, all highlighting the culture of ACE/failings of Cafcass.
Is a stark failure of Cafcass &the secretive family courts which unnecessarily exposes children to adverse childhood experiences, which has been proven to cause lifelong harm.
