CAFCASS's CHIEF EXEC RESPONDS

STATEMENT FROM ANTHONY DOUGLAS FOLLOWING TIMES ARTICLE:

The views I expressed in the Times article were distorted by the headline, 'let 7 year olds choose.................'.

But I did say that children had a right to be consulted, and that it is impossible to arrive at a view about what is best for them without finding out how they're thinking or feeling.

That basic human right to be consulted will I think become more enshrined in case law in future years, as it is now for older children. However, stating that, which few would disagree with, is not the same as 'letting 7 year olds choose'. Unchecked freedom of choice for young children would clearly be absurd. Young children have conceptual limitations, change their minds, and are prone to influence. Well, I should say they're more conceptually limited, change their minds more and more prone to influence than adults!

Adults have some of these limitations too! For me, the key point is that children will have formed their attachments, strong or weak, to both their parents at a very young age. By 7 they're well down the road, and if communicated with properly, will discuss how they feel and what they want,

as underlying convictions for them, not anyone else.

What I was expressing was my view that our work in CAFCASS should be attachment-led. In other words, what matters is to promote and strengthen the attachment between a child and both her or his parents after a separation.

Children can grow up with multiple attachments and can cope with parallel parenting.

Assuming a child has decent attachments to both parents, both parents then need substantial parenting time over the years in order to maintain and build those attachments. If a child has no attachment, a disrupted attachment or a poor attachment to one parent, then from that child's point of view, the prospect of shared residence or substantial parenting time is less appealing. The issue then becomes whether substantial parenting time is right for the non-resident parent in those circumstances in order to repair a damaged attachment or to build it up from scratch in a different way. If it can be repaired, that is invariably best for a child and we need far stronger family support services to facilitate that.

From a fathers perspective, I believe that a focus on a child's attachments will demonstrate that shared residence approaches are usually best, and that where one parent excludes the other for good reason or bad, a focus on the child's separate relationships with each of his or her parents will show that even if one adult wants nothing more to do with the other, the child does want the relationship to continue. Our role is to support that and try to make it happen.

The family justice system does need to be more assertive on behalf of a child to make sure that is achieved. Equally in the far fewer cases where a child is petrified of one parent, it's irresponsible of us to pursue 'the presumption of contact' to such a length that we put a child in a situation of continuing harm of one sort or another.

I agree with the comments made by some FNF members that our staff need continuing core training in dispute resolution and communicating with children if this vision is to be achieved. We are reviewing our training strategy at the moment, and will let you have a copy of that when it is drafted in the usual way. I would point out that our dispute resolution services in different parts of the country are achieving very high success rates. Dispute resolution is our top priority.

Finally I want to say something about parental alienation syndrome.....

......If a parent coaches a child in this way, it clearly puts the child in an impossible position, with split loyalties that often become too uncomfortable to live with. In my view that is subjecting the child to long-term emotional harm. We have often recommended transfers of residence in these cases, although each case needs a careful assessment.

I do hope the matters raised can generate a healthy and productive debate.

CAFCASS is aiming to publish a new professional strategy in draft on 20 September, after it has been to the CAFCASS Board, with a 3 month consultation period to follow. We will set out our strategy on all these issues in that document, which will cover our work in public and private law cases. Your views matter to us.

Best wishes

Anthony Douglas

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EPC FORUMS AND POST YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT