I have a current bugbear, but don’t get me wrong: I don’t want to add to the mass of negativity surrounding the dread word ‘social worker’. This post really only concerns the cases where the quality of s7 reports prepared by social workers in private proceedings falls far short of the expected standard. Most reports are adequate, many are much more than adequate. But there is a certain (how shall I say it?) patchiness.
.
Even Forrest Gump knows that s7 reports are like a box of chocolates (you never know whatchu gonna git – are you going to get the truffle, or the orange creme nobody wants? Apologies for the naff analogy but it’s nearly time to knock off for the hols and a big tin of Christmas chocs is beckoning…) As for s7 reports, I’ve had a few orange cremes lately, and whilst I am the kind of social outcast who is happy to scoff all the orange cremes at the bottom of the tin (I love ’em), when it comes to duff s7 reports there is an important point of policy beneath that sparkly foil wrapping (Okay, enough of the analogy it’s making my teeth hurt).
.
Occasionally a Judge will decide that a s7 report is flawed or that there is some other good reason to depart from a recommendation contained in it. Usually they do so politely and without hurting anybody’s feelings. Very occasionally a Judge will decide that a s7 report is so badly flawed that it warrants being spelt out in the judgment in terms which are quite strongly critical of the report writer. I have dealt with perhaps 3 or 4 of these in the last couple of years. Very very occasionally the Judge will be so unhappy with the quality of the s7 report that they will order a copy of the judgment be sent to social services to ensure that they are aware of the court’s concern (this can only happen with the court’s permission – parties cannot disclose the judgment themselves without permission). Incidentally, I’ve yet to deal with one of these cases where the media has been present, but I suppose it is only a matter of time before a similar case is identified by the media and permission given for it to be reported.
.
In most of the cases that I have dealt with where a judgment has been highly critical of an unsatisfactory s7 report that report has been prepared by social services: by a social worker who may or may not be experienced but who has very little experience of private law work or of s7 reports (in one case a CAFCASS report was prepared by a sandwich year social work undergraduate on a work placement at CAFCASS). Clearly this is nothing like a statistically valid sample, but my sense is that (for better or for worse) the organisational quality checks on reports may tend to be more rigorous within CAFCASS than elsewhere. Big generalisation, but that’s my sense. In some respects this should come as no surprise since it used to be the expectation (not so any more since CAFCASS has ground to a halt) that most s7 reports were produced by CAFCASS as a matter of course – its what CAFCASS DO, and its more of a sideline for social services. In recent times of course the courts have been forced to fall back on social services to prepare s7 reports where CAFCASS cannot, and no doubt this is an additional pressure on often reluctant Local Authorities who would frankly rather be focussing their resources on child protection and on actual or potential care cases.
.
If my experience is representative a s7 report from social services will typically be comparatively cursory. Sometimes it will be a slender report that has an air of ‘Yep, current situation looks fine, now can I go back to my child protection caseload?’ to it. Concerning features I have noted from time to time are reports which
- substitute inappropriate criteria for the welfare checklist (safeguarding as buzzword, Every Child Matters Five Outcomes as glib justification for decision) and / or fail to properly utilise the welfare checklist as a tool for informing the s7 assessment and cross checking of recommendations, in particular a report which fails properly to take into account the significance of change (I think this is probably a by-product of a child protection mindset where the starting point in care planning is often of an already displaced child rather than a status quo with one parent?),
or are prepared by a reporter who
- takes a minimalist approach to the scope of assessment or the breadth of the question posed (least possible work to achieve compliance with direction), or who
- produces an oversimplistic rendering of the issues in the case, a flattening out of the subtleties (because if its not ‘care’ its not complex).
Again, I generalise. Again, I stress: this is not the norm, it is the extreme end of the spectrum. But I have seen it more than once. And it does worry me.
The reality is this. A publicly funded party will often have funding withdrawn on the filing of a negative report. That’s ok if the report is of good quality. If a report is solid then in the vast majority of cases sensible advice will be given to both parties, the matter will be compromised in line with the recommendations, and the parties and children can move on with their lives without waiting for a hearing date and without the stress of proceedings hanging over them. However if counsel advises the report is flawed and there is scope for it to be challenged at final hearing funding may still continue. Almost certainly in these circumstances neither party can be advised to settle – the outcome is still uncertain. One party has the benefit of a recommendation in their favour, the other of some arguments about a flawed report. A contest is inevitable. The matter will have to be listed.
.
I hold the view that where a Judge has been strongly critical of the quality of a report (whether CAFCASS or Social Services) the interests of justice require that Judgment to be disclosed back to the Local Authority (or CAFCASS). It is essential that reports are of a consistently good quality and Local Authorities, CAFCASS and indeed individual report writers cannot be expected to improve quality if they are not told where they are going wrong. It may be unpalatable to potentially get a well meaning and hard working social worker into hot water with her manager (Although in practice the report has probably been seen and approved by a team manager and someone in legal before ever being filed), but consider these important reasons why judicial remarks about poor quality reports should be disclosed to the organisation responsible for it:
- to ensure the court and the parties can be reasonably confident that the right outcome will be reached for their child and that the court will be put in a position of having a reliable basis upon which to reach a conclusion
- to ensure that public funds are not wasted on unnecessary contested hearings (say, at least 1 day court / judicial time, solicitors and barristers costs etc)
- to ensure that parents are not given false hope of an outcome in their favour or conversely are not unecessarily forced to endure the wait for a contested hearing that could have been avoided, with all the stress that goes with that
- to ensure that delay is not caused for the child, either by increasing the need for contested hearings or by resulting in the need for addendum reports or even reports from alternative agencies to make up in the deficit in information in the first report
- to ensure that the overstretched resources available are not further overstretched by taking up court time / prolonging cases
- to ensure that where cases have with hindsight gone wrong parents can be satisfied that steps have been taken to ensure that such failings will be learnt from and will not be repeated
.
At the end of the day, it feels good to have successfully undermined a flawed report through cross examination and to have achieved the outcome your client sought in the face of a negative recommendation. But the significance of these experiences goes beyond that child and that case – will the flaws be present in the next report prepared by that social worker? And what happens to parents who are not represented? It is a tough job to unseat a s7 recommendation and a judge has to be given sufficient basis upon which to properly do this, or risk appeal. I don’t think this is something most litigants in person would be able to do.
.
So what happens if the quality of s7 reports declines as a result of an overstretched or failing system, and if simulataneously the availability of public funding or of counsel to take on such cases reduces as a result of public funding cuts? The wrong outcome for children, injustice for parents and families. So whilst it’s no panacea to send a critical judgment to social services or CAFCASS by way of feedback, I think it’s the least that can be done.
.
The stark reality given the current state of CAFCASS is that Social Services are likely to be the primary providers of s7 reports for the forseeable future and it needs to be something that their social workers are trained and competent in, not just a sideline.
A very interesting article, and I would agree that the crux of it is the decision by the LSC that they will withdraw funding on the receipt of an adverse report. Once the LSC began treating section 7 reports as being effectively determinative of whether a party should have a right to legal representation, it became even more important that the section 7 report is thorough and rigorous.
Sadly, having seen these from both sides, I’m well aware of the shoddy state that section 7 referrals come over to social workers. The order usually arrives two weeks after the hearing (thus losing 25% of the allocated time) and has none of the court papers – even if there ARE witness statements or allegations. It’s very rare that either of the solicitors actually takes the trouble to send a letter, or even better a copy of the case summary which might set out the reasons why a section 7 report is desirable or necessary.
And frankly, in most cases, if you’re looking at quarelling parents in a private law case and comparing them to the living conditions of 99% of the rest of a social worker’s caseload, it is barely surprising that the circumstances are not felt to be as concerning, and thus a recommendation as to status quo on residence is quite likely (this home is FAR FAR better than every other home the social worker has visited in the last month, after all)
The other issue, of course, is that the section 7 reports don’t get checked and polished – they don’t have to go through a team manager and area manager the way that public law reports do, and they only go past a lawyer in the most exceptional of cases.
I agree entirely though, that given that public funding attributes a very high value to an adverse recommendation in a section 7 report and doesn’t consider that the author might be wrong, could be persuaded to soften or might just be badly shown up in cross-examination, the quality of the report is vital. (My answer to that would be, simply, that the LSC are wrong in making the section 7 report a determining factor of funding and place far too much weight on a report that with the best will in the world generally is finished by the author with a sigh of relief rather than a sense of pride…. )
I would also agree that where a report is really not fit for purpose, the only way to get improvement is for that feedback to be given, unpalatable as it may be.
You are right – social services are often given a very short period of time to complete reports in and there are often difficulties with the report writer getting all the court papers promptly (sometimes because its not sent and sometimes because it gets lost in Legal’s filing tray).
I’m not just seeing reports recommending maintaining the status quo though, I’m seeing poor quality reports recommending a change in the established status quo, which is a recommendation that in particular needs to be rigorously thought through.
As a social worker ( Child Protection) I can assure you that Section 7’s are not in my view given the respect that they should be given. The Children are are as ever lost in the ego’s
and conflict.
Firstly, you get little time to write them and no paperwork from the Court very often. Moreover as if you want to write anything contentious as if you really want to go into Court and be “grilled” by a barrister ! you dont have legal services with you to support as often you are not a party.
I try to avoid Section 7’s. I wrote a Section 37 recently and one Judge commented that it was fair and balanced, ( thank you that was nice to hear for once) the next Judge on the same report did nothing but show criticism and you stand there is Court and have that thrown at you, yeh, welcome to social work and welcome to Court!
Give it all to CAFCASS and let them deal with it, they are the experts after all.
as a magistrate in the family proceedings court it is helpful if the section7 report sums up what i am thinking and praise should be given if the report covers all the issues highlighted in the proceedings. all parties should tell the writer what issues and areas need reporting on.
As a cafcass based social worker and a time served cp social worker for the LA previously, I agree that s7 work is a very different specialism from the main focus of social work in the LA, who get no specialist support or training to address the different focus.
However, I find it increasingly frustrating when the LA is heavily involved, for example the children are subjects on ongoing cp plans, and yet the LA then continue to fail to address risk from either party in their reports, stating that CAFCASS should be dual reporting, basically summarising the LA work.
As both agencies are characterised by increasing back logs and lack of time, it is a waste of public resources for both agencies to be reporting to the court.
Cafcass ARE sws. Or ex sws. “Concerns ” can be solved should there really be concerns from the onset. Saves the paper . But they do not get sorted. That’s not the parents fault always. That’s down to the correct support for the famly’s . Parents need to help themselves so the “concerns” end wth ss help. FOR THE BEST OUTCOME FOR THE CHLDREN. ( Sorry for typo problems. laptop beng slly)
Long story short I am the legal guardian of my 8 year old granddaughter whom I have brought up since birth. last year I stopped the overnight contact …[edited] Please help I’ve lost all faith and hope with the authorities. M.
M, I’ve edited your comment for privacy reasons. I can’t offer advice via this blog, but would suggest you try and obtain some legal advice via a solicitor or public access barrister. You may qualify for legal aid, but if not you could see if you could can get a referral to the Bar Pro Bono Unit who may be able to find someone to advise or represent you.
As a parent subject to a cafcass section 7 report I found that such reports are often rushed in my case 48hours to prepare and not enough time to look at factual evidence and interview or observe is given to the officer writing the report they often just err on the side of caution and pass the buck using the welfare checklist as an excuse to support their arguments. If you are determini g a child’s future you should at least spend the time to do the job properly and fairly. In my case false allegations and assumptions based on flimsy knowledge were used to reduce child contact from a successful 8 hours every weekend building towards overnight stays down to 1 hour in a contact centre every three weeks.
The report was 5 pages long and gave no reasons why the officer made their recommendations or why eveidence they used. The assessment interviews were combined with the observation and rushed and the officer used the excuse that I was not engaging with my child enough. I was answering an onslaught of questions and trying to look after my child at the same time… The officer was asked to prepare a report because the Mothers solicitor asked for it and the court gave no specific directions just agreed to have a section 7 report. There was no fact finding hearing and the report was conducted using hearsay instead of eveidence. The court have ordered an addendum and kept my contact hours the same until the final hearing in 5 months time but the report should of investigated specific issues outlined by the court not an assumption hearsay and vague opinion. It’s children’s lives you are safeguarding not deciding what to have for tea that night.. Useless system outdated and not fit for purpose is the conscenious of opinion expressed by parents but there is no accountability with cafcass or the private family law proceedings and transparency will bring debate and debate will bring equality and hopefully funding to train staff properly and allow time for such important decisions jsut wish I hadn’t gone to court and like many fathers out there or should I say non resident parents fighting for my children’s rights and my own to some extent has cost me my home my job and eventually my sanity I suspect what choice do you have but to consider just walking away and living with the heartbreak alone. Unjust money making and corrupt are the thoughts of many going through the system isn’t it about time we changed things that don’t work and really looked at equality properly in family courts.