Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

In previous FOIA request CAF19-043 CAFCASS on 25/3/19 acknowledged :

‘ DISABILITY’; one of the 9 protected characteristics was not ‘included’ in their anti discriminatory document: principle underlying private law. CAFCASS governance said that this would be passed the team who developed the CIAF with regards to the ‘inclusion’ of DISABILITY as it is INVISIBLE in the CIAF.

5 months have passed and DISABILITY is still, of today’s date INVISIBLE. This can be reflected in frontline practice.

Are CAFCASS going to add DISABILITY to the anti discriminatory document to make it inclusive or does a service user have to consider Judicial Review with a view to CAFCASS in policy and practice recognising and being inclusive of DISABILITY as a ‘protected characteristic’ ?

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

Organisations complained to about lack of inclusion about disability in this principle in CIAF

EHRC informed
EASS informed
MP informed
PHSO informed
MIND informed
HCPC informed
ICO informed
Shadow Disability Minister informed
Family court informed
CAFCASS informed
Other groups with interest in DISABILITY informed

None of the above listed clear of how CAFCASS can be ‘inclusive of DISABILITY’ in anti discriminatory document can make DISABILITY ‘visible’ as it is a ‘Protected Characteristic’.

It would be helpful if CAFCASS could provide an update on exclusion of DISABILITY and update on progress of it being made visible in the future.

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

You respond by saying please note that CAFCASS does not have an anti discriminatory statement. What is the relevance of providing this information ?

In my request I referred to the anti discrimination ‘document’ in your principle underlying private law.

You go on again to say the document is not CAFCASS anti discrimination statement yet I never mentioned a statement so why have you provided this information in your response ?

I asked clearly if CAFCASS is going to add disability to their anti discriminatory ‘document’ to make disability inclusive therefore can you provide an answer without interchanging words and answer with ‘accuracy’ making a response in the context of the wording I used :’document’.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

I’m not really clear as to why you respond reducing your excuses down to whether I’m referencing a ‘document or statement’. When making my request I used CAFCASS own wording. My request is concerned with DISABILITY being invisible on CAFCASS ‘principle underlying private law’.

This is reflected in policy and frontline practice.

I’m also very clear of how CAFCASS make excuses with interchanging words both in governance responses and frontline practice where your frontline staff on permitted audio explain ‘ very illogically’ how DISABILITY is indeed invisible in frontline practice.

Regardless of whether it is a document or statement DISABILITY IS EXCLUDED and INVISIBLE. Disability is excluded from your principle underlying private law which CAFCASS use for assessment therefore regardless of whether it’s a statement document or what ever is is invisible. Where this is reflected by your frontline practice in any assessment in real terms it is harmful, damaging and dangerous to the person with DISABILITY and the child associated to the persons protected characteristics. INVISIBILITY of DISABILITY in policy translating into practice is discrimination.

If CAFCASS weren’t aware it is one of the 9 protected characteristics you should be now but it would involve not just adding the word DISABILITY to your ‘principle’ in your CIAF but ensuring your staff apply the Equality Act in each case which they don’t.

Invisibility of disability in your PRINCIPLE is one segment of a CIAF that is reckless and harmful to protected groups and children and families associated to their protected characteristics against a backdrop of legislation that CAFCASS appear not to have taken into account with serious consequences.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,
Clearly your draft, CAFCASS brand and style guidelines were ‘not’ in line with anti discriminatory practice nor was your feedback successful as you rolled this out excluding disability. Pretty shocking no experts to include the judiciary or academics nor any experts you rely upon picked up on your exclusion of disability. This suggests CAFCASS in terms of health, disability, mental health which CAFCASS urgently need to deploy experts to scrutinise.

For the record, regardless of how you play with words your frontline staff as CAFCASS are fully aware have discriminated in many strands which didn’t stop and start here Oct 2018 but spread throughout CAFCASS like a cancer. I hold and CAFCASS hold a paper trail of the most insidious multiple sources of discrimination that are deeply entrenched and embedded within CAFCASS; an organisation that ‘should’ have anti discriminatory practice at its core when in reality the core of CAFCASS is discriminatory on many levels it can not purport to providing Equality outcomes for children wherever the child is associated with the person being discriminated againsts protected characteristics. *An impact assessment of all service users and connected children is required for the periods disability was invisible in policy & practice in CAFCASS *

The fact that disability has been omitted was reflected in real terms.

Having experienced the multiple strands of discrimination it came as no great surprise to find it omitted in your anti discriminatory practice principle underlying private law which CAFCASS use in assessments. Disability in real terms was invisible in frontline assessment in actual assessments and worse in permitted audio which evidentially mirrored exclusion of disability in CAFCASS’ principle for assessment.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

It is not an excuse and it is not good enough to say your framework is being treated as a ‘living document’ which you will incorporate updates and research developments. You have affected peoples lives negatively by omitting it: in real terms I have audio which clearly reveals Ms Walters DEMONSTRATING in real terms disability is invisible and her spin on it is truly abhorrent going beyond discrimination ! Your framework is provided your staff to enable them to operate and how they have operated ‘throughout’ CAFCASS FCA upwards through tiers of management is discriminatory currently sitting awaiting upon your CEO’s to take action ! That is how omission of disability translates. It doesn’t matter how you word this or excuse yourselves: there is no excuse. Regardless CAFCASS now need to undertake an impact assessment to identify those affected by omission of disability not only to include frontline staff who have omitted disability in assessments but actions of management within CAFCASS who clearly were able to breach the Equality Act whilst disability was INVISIBLE. CAFCASS staffs unions should also be aware.

Disability is a ‘protected characteristic’ it was a protected characteristic under the disability act and then incorporated into the Equality Act 2010 so there is no excuse for omitting it. It should be fundamental ‘before’ any rollout.

The CIAF clearly was not in line with anti discriminatory practice: in policy and evidently practice. You may care to admit to this as opposed to making ridiculous excuses. The more you prevaricate the more damaging to your ‘brand’

In 2019 DISABILITY should NOT have to be incorporated in an update with in line with practice and research developments. What do you mean ‘research developments’ DISABILITY; a protected act is supposed to be included alongside every other of the 8 protected characteristics and CAFCASS have been around for 20 years and the Equality Act 10 years and disability act many previous years so whatever CAFCASS mean by ‘research developments’ is utterly ridiculous. I’m not even going to dignify your ridiculous response by asking you to explain this comment as this is sheer and utter nonsense ! Disability is one of 9 protected characteristics which was invisible in CAFCASS in policy and practice resulting in multiple strands of actual discrimination still outstanding.

May I remind you that you keep harping on asking me to note CAFCASS does not have an anti discriminatory document. READ the original request these are your words and are of no relevance. Only of relevance is the fact DISABILITY was invisible in CAFCASS PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PRIVATE LAW ‘ASSESSMENT’ ....it shows clearly why when CAFCASS since October 2018 have UNDERTAKEN ASSESSMENTS: DISABILITY HAS BEEN INVISIBLE IN THE FCA ASSESSMENT and invisibility of disability compounded throughout your organisation: fact. Your invisibility from Cafcass principles underlying private law assessment that your staff follow as they are supposed to follow a framework OMITTED DISABILITY IN PRACTICE. Is that clear enough to you. Now check your records and you will match a paper trail to evidence how your omission of disability is omitted by not only by FCA’s in frontline practice but by managers, senior service managers and so on: fact and this is how discrimination in multiple strands happened. This is for the record.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

My final say on the matter of invisibility of disability:

No matter how governance or CAFCASS sit down and respond with a ‘how do we use semantics to wriggle out of wrong doing” either in FOIA or letter: The permitted audio says all you are attempting to shut down. It says it all and is discrimination and everything else I raise: fact. Not in written words but out of the mouths of the discriminators themselves who additionally admit to the process of gathering witness statements. It awaits CAFCASS to take appropriate action within law and in a procedurally proper manner. Worse an in depth explanation of how “words and terminology” and how family law isn’t confidential and ‘that’ explanation. The irrationality defies anything I’ve ever heard, the procedural improperness unacceptable and patent breach in live terms of the Equality Act and how it’s not understood by Ms Walters. It’s not good and it contradicts much of what governance outline on FOIA.
Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

I have to say, having given further consideration to your many pleas to vehemently stress that disability was excluded not as you say to an ‘anti discriminatory document’ but you stress the extract I have ‘referenced’ was omitted from as you point out ‘underlying principles of a CAFCASS private law ASSESSMENT...well that actually has a far worse consequence for service users : subject to an ASSESSMENT is far worse and has far more wider reaching consequences to exclude disability discrimination IN the ASSESSMENT; which is exactly what CAFCASS did !.. of which discriminatory practice arose as I’ve made clear to CAFCASS all along. Practice in real terms matched the principle.

Now that you’ve stressed the extract I’ve referenced was omitted from ASSESSMENTS your FCA’s undertook you can deal with the discrimination in live case where it occurred where FCA omitted it.

It would indeed have had less of an impact in real terms being omitted from a document but omitted from an assessment well really ; THATS THE PROBLEM particularly where it can be evidenced.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]