4. Submission to Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) (in 2002) and their Response

 

The Court Welfare Service was subsumed within CAFCASS in 2001, so that a central body had responsibility for what were CWOs, now CAFCASS officers.

At a public CAFCASS meeting in Manchester, 27 May 2002, CAFCASS's Chairman, Anthony Hewson was asked to explain the situation. He asked his colleague Jonathan Tross to respond with their position, which was that acceptance of the policy was part of their 'diversity' policy. Subsequently Chairman Anthony Hewson was approached in writing about how he would prevent the officers, for whom he had responsibility, from applying the NAPO 'Anti-sexism' policy, which would prevent them from subverting the law or perverting the course of justice in individual cases.

The Cheltenham Group's letter was :

date : 3 June 2002

 

to : Anthony Hewson, Chairman CAFCASS

Headquarters

13th & 14th Floors, Archway Tower

2 Junction Road

London

N19 5HQ

 

Dear Anthony,

CAFCASS and the NAPO Anti-sexism Policy

reference "Policy Objectives and Targets – 2 (a)-(f) The family court System" on page 11

 

It was interesting to attend the consultation exercise in Manchester on Monday 27 May, and to meet you.

 

For your convenience, I enclose an accurate facsimile of the NAPO Anti-Sexism Policy which has been produced by the Cheltenham Group, and refer you to :

  • section 2 (a)-(f) on page 11, which defines the policy with respect to the family court system;

  • section "Women in the family court system" on page 8, which states "There is potential for collusion in home making and peacemaking by the women without ensuring that men share equally in these roles".

 

As I indicated then, I’d like clarification on CAFCASS’s position with respect to the NAPO Anti-sexism Policy, and ask you to let me have a response to the following specific questions :

 

1) How many CAFCASS officers are members of NAPO, in absolute numbers and as a percentage ?

2) Do you accept that the NAPO policy is an attempt to :

a) subvert the law of The Children Act 1989 ?

b) pervert the course of justice in individual legal cases, under The Children Act 1989, in which it would be applied by one of your officers ?

3) Do the statutes, or any other regulations, which establish and guide CAFCASS, require CAFCASS staff to have respect for the written law ?

4) With regard to the answer to (3) :

a) If the answer to (3) is "yes", i.e. you are required by statute or regulations to ensure your officers respect the law, please tell me (i) which regulations they are and (ii) what steps you are taking to eliminate the effects of the NAPO policy (as it affects contested children’s issues between parents) by your officers;

b) If the answer to (3) is "no", please tell me how you intend to proceed.

5) At the Manchester consultation exercise, in response to my question about the NAPO policy and what CAFCASS is doing about it, Jonathan Tross essentially said you were doing nothing as it was part of CAFCASS’s "diversity" policy. I was not aware that respect for "diversity" included acceptance of those who respect the law and those who do not respect the law. Please explain CAFCASS’s "diversity" policy, or tell me in which of CAFCASS’s publications I may read this "diversity" policy.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Barry Worrall

Director, The Cheltenham Group

 

The initial letter from the CAFCASS took about 2 months to arrive, refusing to take action is :

 

r-cafcass-5aug02.gif (30867 bytes)

 

This letter appears to answer none of the questions asked, which are of considerable public interest. The central issue of CAFCASS prohibiting the use of the policy by its officers (in questions 2 and 4) was not addressed.

Hence, no satisfactory response was obtained by 23 August 2002, when we offered the story to the press/media.

 

Return to TENC Annex 4 / NAPO Contents