Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

High Court rules Cafcass only has a 'general duty' to provide Guardians

Sep 29, 2018, 18:33 PM
Slug : Cafcass12072011-632
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 12, 2011, 11:50 AM
Article ID : 95277

By Hugh Logue, Newswatch Editor

CafcassA High Court judgment handed down today has dismissed a claim for judicial review and found that Cafcass' actions in the wake of the massive increase in care cases were lawful.

Judges dismissed the claim that Cafcass had not allocated four care cases quickly enough in 2009-10, citing the main issue as resources. The judgment found that, in trying to allocate cases as quickly as possible, Cafcass had met its general target duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children referred to it each year. Judges also dismissed claims that Cafcass had breached Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Convention.

Anthony Douglas, Chief Executive said: "We are pleased with this crucial judgment, which endorses the way in which we have sought, in the face of unprecedented demand, to provide a service as quickly as possible to every single child referred to us, and to prioritise work and cases, as all demand-led frontline organisations have to do. We are now allocating care cases to Children's Guardians on average four days after receipt from the courts, which is a massive improvement in our service to children.

"Longer term solutions are a matter for the Government, following the Family Justice Review's report in the autumn. However, with local authorities identifying more children at risk of significant harm, for which we applaud them, and with cases lasting longer in the courts, the pressures on all of us look likely to remain high for the foreseeable future. This means that we will all need to continue to take steps to ensure that we use our resources as effectively and efficiently as possible, to ensure that every child whose case is before the family courts receives the best possible service."

The judgment by Lord Justice Munby and Mrs Justice Thirwall reinforced an earlier judgment by Mr Justice Charles and makes it clear that the legislation set down by Parliament places a general target duty on Cafcass to provide Guardians as soon as reasonably practicable, for all children whose cases are before the family courts. The judges agreed with the earlier 2003 judgment by Mr Justice Charles that Cafcass should provide a Children's Guardian as soon as reasonably practicable, but this had to take into consideration Cafcass' staffing and budgetary resources and other demands. The judges concluded: "The driver in all four cases was Cafcass' lack of resources. Its decisions were entirely rational."

The judges said (at paragraphs 91, 92 & 93 of the judgment): "There is a general duty imposed on Cafcass to ensure that children are represented, but that is not to say that there is a specific duty to ensure that a particular child is represented... Moreover, and in any event, it is simply not possible to spell out of [the statutory framework] any obligation to do anything in any particular case within any particular timescale.

"The most that can sensibly be read into sections 12(1)(c) and 12(2) (of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000) is an obligation to appoint 'as soon as reasonably practicable' but, and this is the key point, as soon as reasonably practicable having regard to Cafcass' general functions and duties under section 12, to its resources (both human and financial) and to the various competing demands upon it."

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from