Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

Andrea Walters has reviewed CAFCASS PCP: Principle underlying private law:

“Adult behaviour: All adult behaviour should be described and defined as behaviours, not classifications, diagnoses, or Jargon. The application of a label such as domestic abuse or alienation is not the goal of the assessment. The goal of the assessment is to understand the impact on the child, and an understanding of typologies of adult behaviour can shine a light on the experience of children.”

1. Please provide the review Ms Walters carried out on the above PCP where she has demonstrated the above is not Indirect discrimination. The above being applied to All Adults then CAFCASS should make this review available

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service's handling of my FOI request 'Andrea Walters REVIEW of CAFCASS Indirect Discrimination PCP

Your response is not accurate. I have on permitted audio a very irrational excerpt of Ms Walters completely ‘irrational’ explanation of how she thinks it doesn’t matter what words mean or what words are used to define definitions. which ridiculous as her explanation is it provides much insight into how this organisation interchanges words rather than provide honest answers. Your response is similar. I’m familiar with the irrationality of CAFCASS and interchanging of words therefore that aside please respond ‘properly’ to my FOIA.

I did not as your response implies suggest or say that Ms Walters reviewed the child impact assessment framework.

On 11/6/19 I filed complaints of strands of discrimination with Ms Rees with Ms Walters present in the court and filed the copy of theses through the family court a. So the court was alive to the discrimination and b. As stated CAFCASS had been obstructing any meaningful submissions of discrimination.

The complaints which are ‘protected acts’ under the Equality act included but not limited to:
Failure to provide reasonable adjustments, which is unlawful
Discrimination arising out of disability
Discrimination arising out of beliefs
Indirect discrimination
GDPR breaches

All above outstanding none of which procedurally proper discrimination assessments have yet been undertaken to assess gravity.
These were all set out in the correct ‘procedural format as formal discrimination complaints and as the District Judge stated ‘matters for National CAFCASS which need to address discrimination in varying firms and strands as they are ‘protected acts’

Ms Walters responded on 19/6/19 referring to these formal complaints as ‘the bundle I gave Jodie Rees’. This clearly demonstrates how Ms Walters uses language to change the meaning. I did not submit a bundle I submitted complaints of ‘discrimination’ in protocol format. Her interchanging formal discrimination documents to suit her own agenda is both ‘dishonest and innacurate and in bad faith.

Ms Walters wrote:

Dear Ms Soeder

Thank you for the bundle of information you gave to Jodie Rees at the court hearing on Tuesday 11th June in respect of your most recent complaint I have now had the opportunity to review it .

Please can I refer you to the replies you have already received from Cafcass in response to your previous complaints it is my view that the issues you raise have already been considered.

if you are unhappy with the decision you are free to contact the office of Parliamentary and health service ombudsman via an MP. More information on the process and what the ombudsman can consider can be found at www.ombudsman.co.uk or by calling 03450154033.

Yours sincerely
Andrea Walters
Service manager

The following shows how procedurally incorrect this response is, dishonest, inaccurate and an example of Ms Walters attempt to shut down and stymie complaints; protected acts.

1. I did not as Ms Walters states provide ‘a bundle of information’ to Ms Rees 11/6/19 I served complaints of discrimination as outlined which are ‘protected acts’ within the meaning of the Equality Act. These were supplied to Ms Rees in good faith and copied and filed with the court to serve as a record if CAFCASS did exactly what they have done :

a. Stymied the complaints; protected acts
b. Interchanged the definition, wording and meaning of the complaints; protected acts manipulating this inaccurately and dishonestly renaming them ‘a bundle of information’.

2. Included in these ‘protected acts’ made in good faith was a ‘fresh complaint of INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION’ one that had NOT been raised in my complaint of November 2018 which was closed. Therefore in paragraph 2 of her letter Ms Walters is dishonest and her response inaccurate in her ‘view’ that the issues I raised have already been considered. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION was not rationally and procedurally addressed at all nor already considered in my previous complaint to CAFCASS because it had NOT been ‘previously SUBMITTED’ to CAFCASS hence Ms Walters response is dishonest. She has simply taken a ‘fresh’ complaint of INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION and dishonestly acted in bad faith to mislead by saying it had ‘already been considered’ which is dishonest. The onus is on CAFCASS to justify this PCP is not indirect discrimination and prove it. Ms Walters as you can see in her letter has not justified the INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION. So il reiterate your PCP is indirect discrimination therefore justify it and prove it here on FOIA with proper and accurate information and provide ‘whatever’ information Ms Walters used to come to her conclusion in the above letter.

*what Ms Walters has done is attempted to shoehorn fresh complaints into an old closed complaint which is dishonest, procedurally improper and irrational. *These were ‘protected acts made in good faith and not treated as such’. In stark contrast the protected acts were responded to in bad faith by Pauline Foggo who responded as EASS pointed out with a response that was ‘victimisation’ under the Act because I had and was going to make further protected acts. This behaviour within CAFCASS is unlawful and breaches the Equality Act 2010 on many levels. All protected acts remain not investigated and no assessments of gravity

3. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION: So for clarity Ms Walters letter purports to have ‘reviewed a most recent complaint/bundle’. A complaint of INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION was included in what she calls a bundle therefore and as the letter states Ms Walters ‘reviewed it’ therefore this FOIA , requested regardless of how Ms Walters interchanges meaning of wording, requests CAFCASS :

Provide in this request a copy of the review of INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION. Regardless of how the wording is changed to be clear I am requesting a copy of whatever information Ms Walter used to include the assessment of indirect discrimination, the written process and paperwork trail procedure & conclusions and any information she recorded on record, Regardless of the ‘specific’ wording Ms Walters or CAFCASS use in simplicity I want to see the response to INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION that Ms Walters undertook to make her decisions about this PCP : Adult Behaviour in CAFCASS principles underlying private law ‘assessment’.

4. INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION can affect not only me, but it can affect other groups of people: here to include service users of CAFCASS ‘with a DIAGNOSIS’; which may include ‘protected characteristics’ The PCP is as I’ve informed CAFCASS on 11/6/19 and on FOIA : INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION therefore because this is ‘in the public interest’ because it may be harmful if applied to them in assessment without application of the 2010 Equality Act or without case law considered it has the potential to cause serious harm to service users where this PCP is executed in live cases.

5. I’m going to reiterate this PCP in its ‘entirety’ needs to be removed with immediate effect from today’s date . It is INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION and this can in ‘live cases’ as it did in mine cause ‘direct discrimination’. CAFCASS now need to undertake an impact assessment to identify any damage, harm this reckless and irrational PCP has had upon service users and any child connected to the service user or connected to the service users protected characteristics since the date it was rolled out and until the date it is removed. Any person/family who has been exposed live to this deficiency must have the negative impact fully addressed by CAFCASS. As long as this PCP is live and rolling and applied by FCA’s service users, families and children connected can be at risk of harm where this PCP is applied in real terms. The negative impact upon any persons exposed to this PCP will require an impact assessment to identify the extent of the negative effect upon them and damage or discrimination experienced, particularly again because disability was also invisible in policy and practice in CAFCASS principles underlying private law assessment. Added to this lack of diversity training referenced in FOIA.

6 Training: you say this document is being treated as a living document. I can reassure you that ‘living impact’ of this wholly unfit for purpose unscrutinised framework is IRREVOCABLY LIFE DAMAGING. You have NO mechanisms in place to assess the impact negative or positive this ‘living document’ is having on children and families. Your NIS Team were not properly qualified to produce this framework. It is clear CAFCASS required the input of specialists and their expertise. It is not ethical to treat your service users as live guinea pigs to this living document: negative impacts ethically need to be assessed where harm has been caused by this framework.

7. It is not acceptable where, impact on ‘live people’ and ‘real lives’ are being harmed and damaged by this PCP to excuse this by saying you will incorporate updates in line with ‘practice and research developments’ undertaking an annual review :

a. How many children and families will experience harm and damage caused by this PCP till annual review
b. How can you assess practice when you stymie complaints therefore you can not learn from the real life damage you expose children and families to

8. CAFCASS NIS is not qualified to ‘review’ this framework ‘they are social workers’ qualified in social work and they themselves have produced a highly flawed CIAF which requires experts and specialists to be deployed to review it, amend it so that it is compatible with Equality Act EHR act compatible and in line with the international medical profession as the global medical evidence base is cogent; by comparison CAFCASS NIS beliefs in this PCP are not. You have not provided an impact assessment and CAFCASS ‘have no way of making proper analysis of negative impacts on children and families. This PCP is a sham and for the record CAFCASS were warned they were not trained to produce this but have proceeded to produce a highly flawed framework. The damage requires inquiry and assessment.

9. Irrationality: your NIS not qualified to produce the framework and its content are your NIS can not rationally be tasked with reviewing and updating it. If you are not collating Impact then how ‘rationally’ can the NIS review it. As stated they weren’t competent in its production so it would be highly irrational for them essentially to Mark their own homework. The framework is flawed and deficient and faulty products require recall for public safety therefore again for the record, in my case and for public safety I request as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act you pass my complaint to your CEO and recommend she acts rationally to remove this ‘irrational in its entirety PCP’ it might look like polished jargon but READ it and locate the sources your NIS have cut and paste this from and you will see the irrationality of ad hoc, arbitrary psychology and philosophy concepts. What an absolute disgrace and to apply this PCP to ‘living humans’ takes them back to dark yesteryears ‘draconian practice’. READ it...it is ‘non sensical’, contradictory, and all of the aforementioned. I fully intend to provide a proper analysis of this ‘jibberish’ PCP to the President of the family division to show the family courts what non sense your NIS are churning out and its impact.

10. Irrational complaints procedure: Ms Walters letter outlined above leaps from a manager dealing with a complaint shoehorning a fresh complaint it dishonestly into a different but uninvestigated closed complaint. Is it procedurally correct in CAFCASS procedure for a manager to exclude fresh complaints being escalated to CST but instead a manager signposting to the PHSO who can not accept such a complaint as the PHSO consider it ‘not ready for the ombudsman’. The PHSO have told me to write back to Ms Walters for a ‘sensible answer’ and told me to ask her to address all the issues she did not address. Again Ms Walters ignored my letter written after contacting the Ombudsman so this complaints process is another sham. I’m still waiting for Ms Walters to respond to the letter 12/8/19 that the PHSO asked me to send her.

11. If your NIS are waiting for update in practice and research developments they will wait a long time for the international medical profession to disregard DIAGNOSIS . There can be NO CONFIDENCE in CAFCASS or whoever wrote this PCP which is irrational beyond belief.

12. If this PCP which I have kindly gone to great lengths to point out how it impacts negatively with evidence of it in practice, in documentation backed up by a permitted audio recording therefore given the adverse negative impact, the potential for harm to service users and children I would recommend CAFCASS remove this from their principle used in assessments with immediate effect and undertake an inquiry to put right any damage caused to any child or family exposed to this. Failure to do so leaves CAFCASS open to legal challenge by individuals or groups affected by this PCP in it perversity, irrationality and by its discriminatory nature and where harm can be caused where there is no equality application by the FCA undertaking the assessment, nor case law considered.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

To assist you

You have not answered the request correctly I’m perfectly aware Ms Walters never reviewed the whole CIAF and that’s not at all what I requested my scope had narrowed it to the PCP : Adult behaviour. Your response is completely off topic.

I asked for information about the PCP not the CIAF: the PCP is the ‘segment’ :Adult behaviour in the Principle underlying private law

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

For the record you have ‘repeated’ your inappropriate response asking me to note Ms Walters did not review the CIAF.

I have never said this, nor remotely alluded to that.

To be clear: All I have ever stated in relation to this is Ms Walters claims to have reviewed THE PCP All adult behaviour which is a ‘segment’: a principle of the CIAF. You appear not to understand what I am requesting and responding therefore highly inaccurately.

Please read my request properly and make accurate responses accordingly

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Thank you for your response. If you are out ruling Ms Walters carrying out a review then can you provide the information defining what her conclusions about the PCP were.

I submitted a complaint; protected act considering this PCP indirect discrimination on 11/6/19 and Ms Walters responded on 19/6/19 she used the word review. Regardless

1. What exactly did Ms Walters do : assess it for indirect discrimination or what ? Please clarify
2. How have CAFCASS considered this PCP which I say is indirect discrimination ?
and
3. What information has CAFCASS Legal provided on this PCP ?

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Just to add Ms Walters response should be made public in this request as indirect discrimination applies to ‘groups’ of people here ‘people with diagnosis’

Thank you.
Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service's handling of my FOI request 'Andrea Walters REVIEW of CAFCASS Indirect Discrimination PCP'.

My request is a valid freedom of information request. Ms Walters: a manager of CAFCASS for the record considered the PCP which IS indirect discrimination; not Indirect discrimination as considered on behalf of CAFCASS.

This PCP IS indirect discrimination. CAFCASS have provide only a ‘view’ that it is not; with no assessment of its gravity. The PCP containing Indirect Discrimination leads to ‘inaccurate’ reports and has negative affects for groups of people with protected characteristics and children by association to their protected characteristics.

Despite being informed CAFCASS have chosen not to omit this PCP enabling indirect discrimination to whilst ever this is applied. CAFCASS have been informed of how this PCP and indirect discrimination in real terms leads to direct discrimination but have taken the stance to ignore this putting any person with a diagnosis at risk of harm. This PCP enables reckless and damaging outcomes and CAFCASS are not assessing either the inaccurate data FCA’s generate in assessments or the impact/distress and damage it causes.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

NB : where any member of the public is affected negatively by this Indirect discrimination PCP, CAFCASS having been informed; they run the risk of Negligence if this PCP is applied in live cases.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

It is not good enough that you will ‘pass my views’ to the NIS. It is not good enough that this PCP will be reviewed as real damage to real people’s lives have happened within the year of this PCP rolling live; Indirectly discriminating furthermore directly discriminating where practice follows policy. CAFCASS living document ‘flatlines’ families with this PCP.

The PCP raises serious administrative issues, EHR Act is engaged, Equality Act breaches where case law is not applied. The PCP unscrutinised with no Equality Impact assessment and where applied October 2018-2019 it puts families in an invidious position. This PCP has no place in ‘civilised modern life’ where Equality Act, EHR articles and the MH Act/code of practice ‘should’ apply.

What CAFCASS has demonstrated is there is a discrepancy between what it purports to do and what it actually does and provides inaccurate information. This PCP was not made transparent at point it rolled out live to the public. It conflicts with the Bench equality guidelines as such persons with protected characteristics find themselves in a ‘dangerous position’ under CAFCASS; where no uk nor EU legislation that should be balanced is applied by CAFCASS.

Any persons negatively affected by this PCP will require proper negative assessment which a callous organisation such as CAFCASS shows no effort to undertake and I wish to place this on record that Parliament now dissolving, after the election needs to undertake serious inquiries into the illogical lack of compatibility of CAFCASS hidden (now transparent by FOIA) agenda and FPR because the evidence as it stands shows serious administrative and other failures of CAFCASS.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,
On 16th October you noted you would pass my views to your NIS which was that your PCP was indirectly discrimination. Please provide the response of the NIS i.e was the PCP removed/amended/altered to remove the discrimination contained within it.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Furthermore, Ms Walters did not review this PCP as she claimed, nor any claims of any strand of discrimination thus head of legal has misused FOIA/DPA in relation to personal data held internally, misusing the FOIA and incorrectly deeming the requester vexatious to pursue a course of prohibited behaviour in an internal CAFCASS agenda.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]