Disclosure Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Ms xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: 16 September 2019
Dear Ms Soeder,
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 190830021
Thank you for your request received on the 30 August 2019, in which you asked for the
following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
1. CAFCASS state in their principle underlying private law that:“ All adult behaviours
should be defined and described as ‘behaviours’ not classifications, DIAGNOSIS,
jargon. *This PCP/rule/principle is Indirect Discrimination* which may have affected
groups of disadvantaged people with a health or Mental Health DIAGNOSIS where
under 2010 Equality Act (which CAFCASS do not apply) DIAGNOSIS ‘Matters’ to them
and behaviour through no fault of their own ‘arise in consequence of DIAGNOSIS.
Cafcass PCP for this practice policy or rule that applies to everyone as it states all
‘adult behaviour’ shows Cafcass is applying it to all adults in the same way but this
has a worse effect on some people/groups than others. The equality act says it puts
people with a ‘diagnosis’ at a disadvantage as certain adult ‘behaviours arise in
consequence of health/disability that calls for special provisions for their protected
characteristics under the provisions of the equality act under which they are afforded
safeguards rights and protection in law which Cafcass are NOT fulfilling in their
statutory obligations. Can the Ministry of Justice being their sponsor provide
information as to how this principle is in operation and shed light on what Equality
measures NEED to be applied in tandem because as this stands it is Indirect
Discrimination
2. Can the Ministry of Justice please provide the information obtained in the
development and consultation of this principle/PCP rule to justify WHY Cafcass have
adopted and maintained this provision which excludes from the ambit of the
protection of the equality act some adult behaviours which are a manifestation of
adults health/mental health conditions to include but not limited to specific behaviour
arising in consequence of: Autism , Asperger syndrome Multiple Sclerosis epilepsy,
Dementia, Post Traumatic Stress disorder, Huntington’s disease, Stroke, Brain injury,
Tourette’s Disorder, Eating Disorders where ‘behaviours’ are not a choice for adults in
these groups and their behaviour is a manifestation of the very DIAGNOSIS /condition
under the provisions of the Equality Act - ‘behaviour’ through which no fault of their
own manifests itself so as to ‘justify’ treating them differently: NOT ALL the same as
CAFCASS rule states.
3. Can the Ministry of Justice, as CAFCASS sponsor please provide all information
CAFCASS hold showing ‘WHO authored this principle/rule/PCP and which experts
support it, which source it was obtained or borrowed from or which book, journal,
source or school or belief CAFCASS have relied upon for this principle and please
reference clearly the source this rule was taken from or point to where this
information is available to the public as CAFCASS refuse to reveal this ? As this
principle stands it appears to have no ‘source’ and may have been developed
internally by the CAFCASS brand only peer reviewed which is deeply disconcerting as
it appears not to be a medically recognised or cogent belief. The public have the right
to ‘Transparency’ of any methodologies being applied to them yet CAFCASS refuse
Transparency. There is a moral and ethical responsibility to provide this information
and the information in the public domain
4. Can the Ministry of Justice as a responsible sponsor please provide the public all
the information CAFCASS holds that demonstrates this principle in its entirety about
“All adult behaviour” and information held validating it is worthy of respect and not
conflicting with the fundamental rights of service users whose behaviour arises in
consequence of DIAGNOSIS and what information Cafcass holds which demonstrates
it has weighed or assessed the potential equality impact upon adult service users
with behaviours that arise in consequence of disability. Please provide information
Cafcass hold to demonstrate the principle was weighed against the Equality Act and
EHRA as Cafcass refuse to provide this information. Ms Parsons made a public
reassurance that CAFCASS wanted to be ‘absolutely transparent yet they refuse to
provide this basic transparent information.
5. Can the Ministry of Justice please provide The information Cafcass holds showing
which policies and guidance CAFCASS used in the process of developing this
principle and provide the documents that show Cafcass considered the Equality
impact on service users human rights and how these were considered in the planning
stages of the development and implementation of this Cafcass principle as CAFCASS
refuse to make this information available to the public?
6. a. Can the Ministry of Justice provide information as to why CAFCASS are working
with disabled Grand parents with ‘NO tools in their matrix’ related to grand parents
and further why CAFCASS tools are unvalidated? b. Why CAFCASS do not apply 2010
Equality Act to disabled Grandparents
7. Can the Ministry of Justice please provide information as to why CAFCASS in the
CIAF, again in principle underlying private law: Anti Discriminatory Practice
CAFCASS do not include DISABILITY; which is one of the 9 ‘protected characteristics’
DISABILITY is INVISIBLE to CAFCASS both in policy and in frontline practice ? Do the
Ministry of Justice hold any information as to why DISABILITY has been omitted ? Do
CAFCASS have to have disability in their anti discriminatory practice and who
ensures they do this ? Judicial Review?
8. Can the Ministry of Justice provide any information as to why CAFCASS are
routinely and repeatedly ignoring their obligations under 2010 Equality Act ? Also
operating a ‘one step complaints procedure’ allowing ‘one complaint’ then no ‘fresh’
complaints which EASS say is unacceptable as a SU should be able to access a
complaints procedure ‘as many times as they need to as discrimination does ‘not
stop and start’ with one complaint therefore why are vulnerable adults including
grand parents only able to make ‘one’ complaint only because the CAFCASS
complaints procedure ‘closes’ and CAFCASS freely discriminate in many strands of
discrimination for the following months leaving vulnerable disabled complainants
with ‘protected characteristics: UNPROTECTED unable to submit fresh complaints ?
Do the Ministry of Justice have any plans remedy discrimination matters rife in
CAFCASS ? n.b their complaints procedure is designed; not to take complaints.
2
9. Can the Ministry of Justice provide any information as to why added to all
aforementioned that CAFCASS ‘Diversity and inclusion’ module when requested ‘had
as they stated ‘not yet available to staff on their e-learning system ?
10. As you can see the above is a bureaucratic shambles and without any of the
above the Equality Act and EHRA breached repeatedly and a complete and utter
disregard for disability which is INVISIBLE within policy, procedure, training and in
practice. With no external scrutiny happening and INVISIBILITY of disability as
outlined with no application of the Equality Act CAFCASS are blatantly and freely
discriminating seemingly accountable none of this said lightly. I fail to understand
how a National Organisation who ‘omit disability’ Can deny discrimination of varying
strands which cascades through this organisation like a cancer. Their PSED expects
‘due regard’ for disability but as policy stands its ‘no regard’
11. CAFCASS refuse to provide this information therefore in the public interest could
The Ministry of Justice who sponsor them provide the information as it is in the public
interest as would be an inquiry to assess the negative impact upon disabled service
users and children associated to their protected characteristics ‘adversely affected’. If
not can you provide information as to who exactly regulates them and holds them
accountable for ‘no regard and INVISIBILITY of disability’?
12. I trust the Ministry of Justice can see that any reasonable person concerned with
Equality should when asking for this information in good faith be supplied with it. The
Ministry of Justice will recognise the wide ranging ramifications if CAFCASS continue
to operate with disability invisible in policy and practice.
13. Essentially CAFCASS are saying disabled grandparents with symptoms of
Dementia, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Frailty, Depression, Post
traumatic stress disorder, Multiple sclerosis, Brain injury, malnutrition, and any
elderly health or mental health condition who have ‘emotional outbursts’ symptoms of
all afore listed are potentially and ‘could in the future be ‘harmful’ to Grand children
going against medical opinion. CAFCASS are a sheer and utter untrained disgrace
making 2 hour rushed in rushed out reports that amount to no more than a literary
device with fictitious plot twists which they will defend, at all costs rather than admit
wrong doing with impunity. They’ve destroyed families for years but now they’re
unleashed on grandparents ‘with no tools’ nor Equality Act application which places
groups of people with protected characteristics and people associated including
children at harm; discrimination. There is serious Equality breaches and EHR
breaches in CAFCASS. This a National disgrace and I should hope regulators
intervene.
14. There were concerns raise prior to this CIAF published in the Guardian Newspaper
and reassurances from Sarah Parsons CAFCASS saying any developments in
CAFCASS would not be ‘DRACONIAN’. CAFCASS was described as not being centre
ground or nuanced at all but instead it was recorded they sounded “Draconian and
rather frightening”. This was in response to CAFCASS seemingly having powers to
remove children from a parent; it could never have been imagined such ‘draconian
‘principles would be rolled out in their new development to stop disabled
grandparents from seeing children; where CAFCASS elevate themselves above
medical clinicians. There are serious legal and ethical problems in CAFCASS now
purporting to have medical powers that they simply do not have and it appears
CAFCASS are unscrutinised by experts in health, mental health disability therefore
Ministry of Justice now know CAFCASS need to urgently deploy experts in these
areas to scrutinise these draconian principles. It’s wholly unacceptable.
3
15. Lastly can the Ministry of Justice provide any information as to why CAFCASS
are not only assuming the roles of psychologists and medical experts they are indeed
acting with powers; not afforded to them, only Judges ? Ms Parsons made a
statement assuring the public that CAFCASS ‘would not overstep the Mark in court’.
Only a judge can order ‘witness statements’ but CAFCASS are obtaining them
‘without judge or court ordering them? CAFCASS governance are saying that their
FCA’s don’t obtain witness statements but they are Again I don’t say this lightly I have
permitted audio of CAFCASS admitting to this, after lying and making excuses?
FCA’s acting with powers only afforded to judges is completely unacceptable. What
information does the Ministry of Justice hold on FCA’s gathering witness statements
and making analysis of them without judges/court orders? Again Ms Parsons assured
the public that CAFCASS developments would not involve them ‘overstepping the
Mark in court’ BUT I can assure the Ministry of Justice with evidence they are and it’s
simply not acceptable and an inquiry as to the extent of this and damages to families
affected needs to happen. The ramifications of this irrevocably damaging and
breaches of Article 6 and 8 to say the least? Where this happens and irrevocable
damage happens how is damage repaired?
16. I sincerely hope The Ministry of Justice being the sponsor can provide information
as CAFCASS are breaching the Equality Act in Multiple strands, EHR Act, Mental
health Act and other legislation. Breaching the Equality Act as outlines is not
providing Equality to children who they are misrepresenting by discriminating which
until disability is VISIBLE in policy they are in fact doing.
17. With the current inquiry spotlight on the Family court have the Ministry of Justice
any plans to hold an inquiry into CAFCASS procedural impropriety and unlawfulness
i.e. breaches of Equality Act?
Your request has been handled under the FOIA.
The MoJ does not hold any information in the scope of your request. This is because we are
not the appropriate authority to contact on this subject. CAFCASS responds to their own
information requests, and are responsible for the information they hold.
The FOIA does not oblige a public authority to provide information held by a different public
authority, or an independent organisation. Neither does it require a public authority to create
information to answer an FOI request, if the requested information is not held. The MoJ duty
under the FOIA, is only to provide any recorded information held by MoJ, which is not
exempt from disclosure.
As the information you have requested is Cafcass information, it will need to be requested
from them. If you are not content with any reply provided to your FOI requests by CAFCASS,
then you should request an internal review. If you are not content with the result of any
internal review Cafcass provide, then you can appeal to the ICO.
You can contact Cafcass at the below link
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/contact-us/
Appeal Rights
If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to request an internal review by
responding in writing to one of the addresses below within two months of the date of this
response.
4
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Disclosure Team, MoJ, 10.25, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ
You do have the right to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate any
aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal
complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning their investigation.
Yours sincerely
The Disclosure Team
5