During recent Private Law proceedings in the Family Court, a section 7 report recommended only indirect contact once every few months between a child and a father unless he completed a DV or anger management program (on the basis that some findings had been made against him). The findings were not serious towards the children.
The Section 7 Report indicated clearly that the wishes and feelings of both children were to see dad again soon.
Since Cafcass does not accredit any such program at the moment, due to the proved inefficiency of the ones they accredited in the recent past, they mentioned two possible courses. The duration of these courses is around 9 months.
When this father approached those course providers, he was told he could not join any of them. However, he found an alternative course that allowed him to join and finish the therapeutic program in a period of 3 months. Over 250 people have been referred to this course by Local Authorities. We asked the Magistrates to let him join this course. This would have allowed his children to see him under professional supervision in a contact centre in a period of 3 months or less.
During the hearing before Magistrates, no deviation from the recommendations from Cafcass was allowed at all. The hearing was considered a final hearing and this father was ordered to finish a Cafcass accredited course (non-existent at the moment) and start proceedings again, which inevitably implies long waiting and delays, all against the best interest of the child.
Contact centres provide a safe space for children to have interim contact with their parents when it is not safe otherwise, and provide a source of information as per the value of the child-parent relationship in detail, for further consideration of the court towards the welfare stage of proceedings.
However, in this case, like in many others, the Family Law Court did not make use of them. Instead, these children in particular were deprived of any meaningful contact with their dad and ordered to wait indefinitely (minimum around 18 months) before the relationship between the child and dad is re-established.
This father must now persuade Cafcass to help him enrol in a non- existent non-accredited course, although they do not have any further dealings in this case, as it is closed.
Is this decision in the best interest of these children? We think not.
What do you think?
Send us feedback!