Skip to main content

Ofsted inspection of CafCass

The link is to Ofsted's analysis of cafcass which includes statements such as:

In another case an 11-month-old child was said to be too young to appreciate “the political significance of his circumstances”. Far too many reports were based on opinion, not evidence, and many were full of errors. Analysis of facts was poor, with advisers too often jumping to conclusions. In many cases inspectors had no idea how Cafcass advisers reached their recommendations.

It is interesting how CSCI never picked up on any of this.

Comments

Janeja said…
Cafcass Guardian Ad Litem Under Rule 9.5 has chosen to ignore all feelings of our 6 and 3 year olds and has in a span of 3 months without assessment said I have a psychological dysfunction and a personality disorder. When I complained she victimised me. Then when she was not available and my barrister saying I should not expect much input from Cafcass, I asked other agencies to support us and she intervened and told them so much of the case that it scared them off. She is now off to read social services' records to ascertain what I might have conveyed to them as she is bent on removing the residency of the children from my care to father's without any justification.

Yet she is untouchable with my solicitor and barrister saying "she is a difficult woman", "Try and get her on your side", etc. This nightmare is worse than the alleged abusive relation I fled from.

Judges do not like Cafcass practitioners challenged and rely heavily on their so called expertise. In my experience two practitioners from one office - teh latest GAL having no case management plan, no planned interventions, no transparency in her decison making, very cagey and manipulative. The case examples she shared with me are worrying with views like "children adopted by gay couples don't have as much of a life chance as those who have a relationship with their biological parents", etc.

Very worrying indeed!
Janeja said…
Cafcass Guardian Ad Litem Under Rule 9.5 has chosen to ignore all feelings of our 6 and 3 year olds and has in a span of 3 months without assessment said I have a psychological dysfunction and a personality disorder. When I complained she victimised me. Then when she was not available and my barrister saying I should not expect much input from Cafcass, I asked other agencies to support us and she intervened and told them so much of the case that it scared them off. She is now off to read social services' records to ascertain what I might have conveyed to them as she is bent on removing the residency of the children from my care to father's without any justification.

Yet she is untouchable with my solicitor and barrister saying "she is a difficult woman", "Try and get her on your side", etc. This nightmare is worse than the alleged abusive relation I fled from.

Judges do not like Cafcass practitioners challenged and rely heavily on their so called expertise. In my experience two practitioners from one office - teh latest GAL having no case management plan, no planned interventions, no transparency in her decison making, very cagey and manipulative. The case examples she shared with me are worrying with views like "children adopted by gay couples don't have as much of a life chance as those who have a relationship with their biological parents", etc.

Very worrying indeed!

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: