Ofsted has lambasted Cafcass's performance in private law - upholding the interests of the children of separated parents in the courts - for the second time in three months, this time in its South East region. Issues raised include failing to take adequate account of domestic violence - a big factor in many cases - and inadequate court reports.

Is the criticism fair - trade union Napo and professional body Nagalro have problems with the quality of Ofsted's inspections - and why do these criticisms (which have surfaced before this year, in previous inspection reports) keep coming up?

Ofsted said that public law took priority over private law in the South East, and Cafcass chief executive Anthony Douglas has vowed that it will no longer be a "Cinderella service".

A lot of these children are very vulnerable - probably just falling short of public law/children in need thresholds in many cases - and it's clearly vital to get this right, but what do people think are the solutions?

More training is on the agenda - Cafcass has ploughed an extra 70% into training this year - but what else do people reckon is needed to improve practice?

Its is about time too in my opinion that CAFCASS was looked at. Social workers are the first to be criticised for bad practice so why not them. Isn't this, dare I say another reason why we should be promoting Independant Social Worker in the Court arena.

I think this links quite nicely to my DV and the courts post and even the post of MFJ.

Cafcass generally ignore DV and child abuse issues in their reports and their recommendations to the court.

Yes, we know some mothers ( and increasingly fathers) make bogus claims of DV and child abuse, but even the cases that have proven issues are subsequently ignored by cafcass in favour of recommending contact.

How they can claim this is in the best interest of the child to be faced with contact with an abuser is beyond rational thought.

If a person were beaten on the street you wouldn't expect the court to order the person stay in contact with the attacker and yet here you have children being forced into this situation with the follow up reasoning of the child should know both parents?

The other thing I noted from the report was the NO Order principle, something which has also be touched on in the other threads, far too few officers recommend a No Order to the court.

Cafcass first damning report was an eye opener to many outside the realms of service user and Sir Anthony Douglas response was to claim " ofsted do not understand us" , I think ofsted understand only too well that this service is failing the children it should be protecting and until they are fully child focused and do not bow to the pressure from groups such as FNF and F4J that refuse to withdraw their support for abusive parents seeking contact these children will remain in danger.

I am in total agreement. Just a note the no order principal is supposed to be argued in all reports that workers put before the courts? In the area that I worked it was.

My experience of CAFCASS is limited to private law (my own divorce), in the event the report was filed but not relied on due to a dramatic change in circumstances. The CAFCASS officer was well qualified and a very experienced social worker but the poor quality of her report was beyond belief. It was factually inaccurate, visits which never took place were referred to in detail, there was gross misrepresentation and a load of unessecary information.(such as the fact that I had my appendix removed when I was 19)

This report was totally biased in my favour even so far as ignoring the children's views in favour of mine so I should not have an axe to grind ,but I do because I was appalled at such a standard. I spoke to her manager about this but she didn't want to know.

I do worry how reports such as this are treated in public law proceedings as the Guardian's report carries an awful lot of weight.

The report findings regarding CAFCASS are not a surprise.  It goes along with the lack of funding and lack of resources that most areas of social work are facing.  But with one difference......

The Guardian's report does carry a lot of weight in court and is it should not.  In most cases, many professions have worked with the family before their involvement in the courts and their experiences should have a greater impact but it does not.  As a CP worker I have been frustrated on a many occasion because a Guardian has come in and with very little information already made up his/her mind about the case.  I have had a few cases where I have worked with the families for over a year and with no option left, brought the matter to court to have the Guardian come in with a predisposed opinion and further delay the protection of the child.  Each report and professional should be treated equally and the work that this professional has done should be considered when judging/reading the reports.

So it is not just parents that find dealing with CAFCASS to be a frustrating experience.