Cafcass criticised over attempt to remove court guardian

President of the family division Sir Nicholas Wall said that Cafcass had no right to remove a guardian from a case. Such a decision should only be made by a court.

His judgment follows care proceedings brought by a county council last September, in which the court guardian recommended the child involved remain with the parents.

The court handling the care proceeding agreed with the guardian. But following an anonymous tip off from an officer at the council not involved with the case Cafcass managers began to question the guardian’s decision and whether the child would be safe at home.

Cafcass then spoke with the council and sought to remove the guardian from the case.

A senior Cafcass manager wrote to the court saying that the guardian "has agreed to be de-appointed from the case".

In his judgment Sir Nicholas said: "It does not seem to me that Cafcass obeyed its own rules. It was not for Cafcass to replace the guardian: it was not for Cafcass to substitute its views for those of the guardian. The guardian may have been right – she may have been wrong. It does not seem to me that Cafcass followed a transparent procedure."

In addition, this letter from Cafcass was not sent to the child’s parents or their legal team, a move that was also criticised by the judge.

In a statement the parents' solicitor said there was "a real issue of transparency and fairness" in the decision of Cafcass management to overrule "an experienced guardian" and undermine "the guardian's independent role within these proceedings".

Cafcass acknowledged "mistakes were made" and that the letter to the court should not have been sent "in the form that it was". It insists though that the letter was not intended as an application to remove the guardian.

The judge’s comments have been welcomed by Nagalro and Napo, which represent court guardians.

Nagalro chair Ann Haigh said the judgment reasserts the independence of children’s guardians.  

She said: "We expect Cafcass to review its organisational policies to take account of this judgment and to ensure that all managers and practitioners fully understand the importance of the professional independence of the children’s guardian role and their proper relationship with the court."

Napo national vice-chair Paul Bishop added: "Sir Nicholas Wall made it clear that if there is such a difference of view then Cafcass should intervene in the proceedings so that the court can hear both views."

Cafcass chief executive Anthony Douglas said that the case was a "one off".

He added: "We do not muzzle practitioners, but there are times when the rationale for a report needs to be challenged. We did not do that properly in this case and we accept the judgment.

"If there is an irreconcilable difference between managerial and practitioner opinion in future, we will do as the president says, and put both views before a court."