Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

Cafcass state in their principles underlying private law: “All adult behaviours should be defined and described as behaviours not classifications, DIAGNOSIS, jargon.

*This PCP/ rule is indirect discrimination * which may have effected groups of disadvantaged people with a health or mental health diagnosis where under the 2010 Equality Act DIAGNOSIS matters to them and behaviours through no fault of their own “arise in ‘consequence’ of DIAGNOSIS/condition

Your PCP rule where this practice, policy or rule which 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 and are afforded safeguards, rights and protection in law which CAFCASS are not fulfilling their statutory obligations.

1. Can CAFCASS please provide the information obtained in the development and consultation of this 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 that calls for special provision to be made for them and their characteristics ‘protected’ under the provisions of the Equality Act ‘behaviour’ Which through no fault of their own manifests itself so as to ‘justify’ treating them differently not all the same as CAFCASS rule states

2. Please provide all information CAFCASS holds showing who authored this PCP/rule which experts support it, which source this has been obtained or borrowed from or which book, journal, source or school of belief CAFCASS have relied upon for this rule and please reference clearly the source this rule was taken from?

3. Please provide the information CAFCASS hold to demonstrate this “belief” about all adult behaviour is simply a belief exclusive to CAFCASS brand and only a CAFCASS opinion or provide the information CAFCASS holds to justify is it an empirically supported belief evidence based and a Nationally or internally recognised belief ? please provide the information CAFCASS hold to validate this as a cogent belief ?

4. Can Cafcass please provide information they hold to support this belief about “All adult behaviour” and information held validating it is worthy of respect, not conflicting with the fundamental rights of adult 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 rule was weighed against the Equality Act and EHRA ?

5. What information/training have CAFCASS provided to all staff when applying this rule to enable FCA’s, managers etc to strike a balance between the rights of children and the rights of adults whose behaviours arise in consequence of diagnosis/conditions ?

6.Please provide the information CAFCASS holds showing which policies and guidance it used in the process of developing this rule and provide the documents that show CAFCASS considered the impact on service users human rights and how these were considered in the planning stages of the development and implementation of this CAFCASS rule ?

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Additionally Ms Walters Manager at Blenheim House Leeds claims to have conducted a ‘review’ of CAFCASS PCP/rule in the principles underlying public law that “All adult behaviours should be defined and described as behaviours no classifications, DIAGNOSIS or Jargon” Please provide all the information CAFCASS hold in her review and full analysis of her review of this specific rule/PCP.

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 'CAFCASS principles underlying private law: Indirect Discrimination

1. May I kindly, point out that this request has been incorrectly claimed to be vexatious and you are not acting in good faith and appear to be using data protection rules to with hold information that is in the public interest as the CIAF is in operation. I am justified in seeking information.

2. You are making an incorrect Judgement that I am pursuing a personal matter and make reference to court; which court you are directing me to is unclear as the role of family court is functus officio. In view of this I am unclear as to which specific court i.e County Court/ Administrative court or which court ? Prior to this documents were filed as a record through the family court in relation to fresh complaints of indirect discrimination/direct and other fresh discriminatory complaints; ‘protected acts in themselves. This information request was not requesting information for personal matters but you responded with them in FOIA hence I’m unsure why you have brought personal matters into this request response as this request was made about information about “ groups” of people with protected characteristics which of course I would be included in; [I have not have any appropriate responses from CAFCASS that comply with 2010:Equality Act; only non compliant responses not upholding UK law or EU Law in Equality duties]
This request was made in good faith is of value to the wider public and seeks very serious purpose for groups of people/pool groups of ‘people with protected characteristics’ whom this principle rule/PCP underpinning private law may be being applied to who are afforded rights under 2010 Equality Act. This request is about ALL ‘groups’ or any person (s) belonging to groups with protected characteristics who may have, may currently be or in the future may be affected by application of this principle underlying private law.

3. My request seeks serious purpose for CAFCASS to provide meaningful information to provide confidence for ‘people with protected characteristics’ : PWPC. You state “ This request for information of one line from the principles in private law section of the Child impact assessment framework ...but has no obvious relevance to this request” ‘no obvious relevance may be CAFCASS perspective and of relevance it is not ‘one line’ I seek information about but the ‘principle in its entirety’ which :
a. May not be legal where 2010 Equality Act or EHRA other legislation not applied and case law is not considered in tandem
b. Is not rational
c. May be procedurally defective with potential to cause or may have cause serious harm to people with protected characteristics; in particular disability.

4. Public confidence:
You need to justify the above question 3 a,b,c and respond to ‘each question in the initial request’ demonstrating accountability, open and honest transparency providing a reasonable response to instil public confidence. There is much media and parliamentary interest at present in CAFCASS and this request forms an opportunity for CAFCASS to disclose this information as CAFCASS CEO is directly and personally accountable to Parliament. You say my request has no serious purpose however I believe sharing information FOIA responses with members of Parliament justifies serious purpose. You should reasonably be expected to comply with this request. There are strong factors for disclosure of all the information I have requested.

5. You state you have previously provided me with information. Frequent requests happened because CAFCASS responses raise far more serious public interest issues. I do not accept that I am abusing Freedom of information but instead it appears CAFCASS are abusing/ wrongly applying data protection rules to obstruct information avoiding honesty, transparency, accountability wasting public funding incorrectly applying section 14 to with hold information that is in wider public interest and requires follow ups, reviews and persistence. The public is entitled to see the rationales/ information CAFCASS holds so they can have confidence that decisions/processes about this rule/PCP/ principle were sound, safe and using correct legislation including but not limited to Equality impact in the process to demonstrate it was robust and compliant with Equality Act 2010:and EHRA and all staff implementing this principle able to demonstrate compliance.

6. Where this request may overlap i.e: CAF19-086 : CAFCASS does not have Equality impact assessment further fresh requests are required and this site states if you would like to ask for information that was not in your request then file a new request. You are using section 14 to obstruct this yet you need to provide information evidencing/ showing CAFCASS holds records/ documents of Equality and diversity in the development if this rule PCP. CAFCASS also failed to answer CAF19-043 question 4 and after incorrect application of section 14 and interchanging semantics finally acknowledged after persistence they would pass “inclusion” of disability [where CAFCASS have ‘excluded it] onto the team who have developed the CIAF and its ‘supporting documentation’.
This requests seeks information from this teams supporting documentation’.
The exclusion of disability adds weight to CAFCASS repeatedly and routinely ignoring their obligations under the 2010 Equality Act. Overlapping persistent requests identified in CAF19-018 an attached Diversity & inclusion training module that their NIS were currently working on: dated 29/1/19 : days after my request on 20/1/19 which explained : “please find attached the diversity and inclusion e-learning module for all staff which has recently been updated . Please note this module has not yet been made available to staff on our e-learning system.” The cumulative picture in freedom of information requests show a negative pattern of lack of inclusion for disability and PWPC and a need for follow up persistent requests due to this kind of response. Passing this and other of CAFCASS responses to an MP specifically titled to work with young children is in my opinion seeking serious purpose. Requests on Freedom of information are necessary in view of lack of scrutiny pertaining to health, mental health disability.

7. The Equality Act removed the requirement to follow a ‘prescriptive’ Equality impact assessment but NOT the requirement to demonstrate Equality compliance. This request seeks you to provide this information in development and consultation. You need to provide transparent information to reassure people with protected characteristics you are in fact providing a fair, accessible appropriate service and it is in their and wider public interest for you to reasonably provide your ‘Equality procedural documents’ evidencing as I requested sources, references, those involved with documents and most importantly documents that satisfy CAFCASS have procedurally held information with their ‘identification of positive and negative impacts of this principle/rule/PCP upon PWPC: people with protected characteristics to include your ‘ Equality impact checklist and reviews, statistical data evidencing the impact since the CIAF containing this principle and again there are overlaps but because their are serious public interest issues the current underlying principles are raising including CAFCASS ‘omitting’ disability ( one of 9 protected characteristics) from another principle underlying since the principles underlying private law in the CIAF rolled out and running live. Any reasonable person would be expected to ask CAFCASS for information where disability is invisible in a CAFCASS principle underling private ‘law’ law being key here given EU law takes precedence over UK law. The omission of disability in the CIAF adds weight to ‘ensure CAFCASS policies, decisions are compatible with EU obligations; which CAFCASS omitting ‘disability’ is not complying. This may add weight to how your to how in frontline practice discrimination happens when these principles are unstable the potential exists to destabilise people with protected characteristics and essentially have an adverse negative impact.

8. For transparency and public confidence it is not enough to say CAFCASS ensures issues of Equality are taken into consideration when a policy is developed and implemented. This kind of response does not go far enough and it it reasonable to make the new request as I have. This request is not vexatious and you need to provide the information to show the public documentation of your process and the evidence made available to demonstrate you have gathered evidence to show policy, practice, function, business case, service change or organisational decisions have due regard for the Equality Act , therefore please provide all documentation/ information to show the public your documented Equality compliance.

9. You need to provide the data to prove/evidence whether this rule/ PCP/Principle has, is currently or may negatively or positively impact upon PWPC. My request enables CAFCASS to provide clear information to the public whether you do or do not discriminate and to evidence where you promote ‘genuine’ Equality. You state you are subject to schedules in the Equality Act but need to demonstrate this with information contained within this request; not just say it. You need to justify it and show it as requested.

10. More constructive helpful transparent responses would have averted my resulting persistence which has evolved from information you have failed to provide or that generates a need for further information.

11. Disability is one of the 9 protected characteristics and there was a need for persistent requests because ‘Disability’ was omitted from your principles underlying public law in the CIAF. This is of very wide public interest and adds weight to the need for you to provide information in this request given that ‘disability’ is not recognised by CAFCASS in policy which could be reflected in frontline staff and the overall organisation which employs over 15,000 staff having a negative Equality impact upon PWPC: people with protected characteristics. This is of serious public interest. My requests and linkage adds weight to a cumulative picture/pattern of discrimination and highlight a severe lack of regard to disability, ignoring it as an organisation is ‘unheard of’ by Equality standards in a National organisation.

12. It is paramount that you provide the legal status of Ms Walters ‘review’ of this PCP/rule/principle. Please provide the information, process and legal status of the review process undertaken to provide public confidence that CAFCASS has reviewed this PCP/rule/principle and confirm as per Ms Walters claims that it is not *Indirectly discriminating’ against any CAFCASS service user. Additionally provide which suitable alternative remedy would a service manager signpost i.e ombudsman or other more suitable alternative remedies after a review of indirect discrimination has been conducted within CAFCASS: procedurally.

13. There appears to be no scrutiny by anyone with a specialist interest in health, mental health, disability which adds weight to the need for you to respond to this request as THIS PCP/rule/principle against the backdrop of the Equality Act May have gravely adverse affects upon other groups with protected characteristics including age where this group combined with disability who are afforded Equality principles to their ‘individual needs/additional needs’ that require application of the Equality Act when not applied face indirect discrimination/direct discrimination.
As your rule stands not taking diagnosis into account added to no provision of Equality Act by CAFCASS means that any potential grandparent for example a grandparent with dementia could be considered ‘a risk due to behaviour arising in consequences of disability including ‘emotional outbursts’. Behaviour arising in consequence of disability Is afforded protection. This PCP/rule/principle of CAFCASS requires validity testing and evidence CAFCASS have recorded Equality impacts since rollout of CIAF demonstrating any negative effects upon PWPC: People with protected characteristics to ensure as per request behaviour’ arising in consequence of disability to include but not limited to Autism, Asperger syndrome, Multiple Sclerosis, Epilepsy, Post traumatic stress disorder, Huntington’s disease, stroke, Brain injury, Tourette’s disorder, Eating disorders are afforded protection and legislation is being implemented by CAFCASS .
It is internationally medically recognised and established in case law that behaviour to include emotional outbursts are not a choice for these people but that “behaviour’ is a manifestation of DIAGNOSIS and does in fact justify affording them protection within Equality Act and EHRA and CAFCASS need to demonstrate compliance through this principle underlying private law showing how they have monitored/applied this prior to CIAF rollout and made provision for ongoing Equality assessment impact data. You need to show this data. If CAFCASS are viewing PWPC: people with protected characteristics behaviour as behaviour ignoring diagnosis then this can be incompatible with UK and EU Equality Obligations. You need to provide the information you hold to demonstrate any negative impacts on these groups of people and show the Equality impact assessments/documents from planning stages - present to evidence CAFCASS monitoring processes. Failure to comply could have, could have very serious negative Equality implications for PWPC.

a: Egregious errors may have been committed as this PCP/rule/ principle ignores the international medical profession not considering diagnosis. CAFCASS appear to be relying upon an unknown research base, rationale and methodology which may infringe the rights of PWPC : people with protected characteristics and UK Equality Act not considered or EU legislation where a Equality duties are an integral part of the mechanisms for ensuring the fulfilment of the aims of anti-discriminatory legislation. [to act outside this is ultra vires] CAFCASS need to reassure People with protected characteristics they are acting Intra Vires as this request seeks information to reassure the public as it is not apparent EU or UK legislation is applicable to CAFCASS. It is also unclear if wide discretionary powers do in fact enable them to overlook disability as a protected characteristic or asses PWPC: people with protected characteristics behaviour simply as behaviour and not with the affective dimension “Diagnosis”.
b. CAFCASS need to reassure the public of the rationality and reasonableness of the PCP/rule/Principle . The medical standard of understanding behaviours arising in consequence of diagnosis is a Nationally and internationally held belief : medicine is an international profession their expertise shared internationally and across clinical boundaries. CAFCASS’ rule PCP/principle cannot take account of these MEDICAL beliefs and instead are appearing to rely upon some relatively unknown possibly unpublished body of research. Again this request sought the source , references, rationale, empirical data and validation of CAFCASS beliefs which they implement in assessment of ALL adult behaviours and seeks the information as to whether they have relied upon their internal research, internal peer review and unique CAFCASS beliefs and the source underpinning the principles needs to be transparent. The public given CAFCASS is a national organisation have the right to information held in the CIAF Principle as it is live and in operation. This gives CAFCASS the opportunity to instil confidence in their principle underlying private law with confidence and ‘pride’. They should have nothing to hide.

Accountability: your organisation should be able to answer each question with pride and confidence as per my initial request in an open, honest and transparent manner. If you are able to evidence each question you have nothing to hide and if you continue to misuse data protection rules; here section 14 incorrectly the public may draw their own conclusions.
I will then take it if you can not provide a meaningful response that you hold none of the information/data I have requested that I believe the public have a right to see. By not providing this information you are opening yourself to challenges in the public domain. Further it could be perceived as damaging to any trust the wider public and people with protected characteristics may have in CAFCASS particularly given this is a principle underlying private law.

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

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Or by contrast please provide the information CAFCASS hold in any policy, training, guidance, letters, emails where CAFCASS hold information internally or in the public domain that states:

1.“You have ‘had’ episodes of experiencing poor mental health and therefore your ‘behaviour’ is a risk.
The request for this information CAFCASS may hold is in the public interest to disclose.

To reduce costs you may narrow the scope to CAFCASS ref: 861437 - 9531 or any other publication (s) in the public domain where CAFCASS have used this phrase which is irrational, illegal and procedurally improper as well as unreasonable where the Equality Act, EHRA has not been applied by CAFCASS and case law not considered. If adult behaviour in CAFCASS principles underlying private law are viewing ALL adult behaviour as behaviour in isolation of legislation/case law then there is risk of severe harm and negative impacts for groups of PWPC: people with protected characteristics/ health DIAGNOSIS/CLASSIFICATIONS and subsequently any related child.

The Director General of the world health organisation Dr Margaret Chan states” mental health matters but the world has a long way to go to achieve it[as does CAFCASS] many unfortunate trends must be reversed neglect of mental health services and care and abuses of human rights and discrimination against people with mental health disorders and psychosocial disabilities .”

Key “facts” [CAFCASS like facts] of the World Health Organisation : strengthening their response:
“Mental health is an integral part of health: indeed there is no health without mental health”.

This is reflected in Family Court Practice directions 12j : “Health” means physical or mental health

2. CAFCASS having a role in proceedings please provide the information within the CIAF and within CAFCASS that aligns with the definition in the above WHO view and practice directions.

* Mental health is a state of wellbeing [everybody has mental health at some point on the spectrum]. Poor mental health is associated with physical ill health, stressful life conditions, social exclusion, discrimination and Human rights violations.
Mental health should be promoted and mainstreamed into governmental departments and integrated into effective policies including CAFCASS.
The term mental disorders is used to denote a range of mental and behavioural disorder is that fall within the international statistical CLASSIFICATION of diseases and related health problems to include but not limited to Dementia depression bipolar affective disorder schizophrenia anxiety disorders eating disorders epilepsy. The WHO plan includes the term ‘vulnerable groups’ and with the emphasis conceptualised having a positive sense of identity, ultimately ‘enabling’ full active participation in society.

World Health Organsation :

07: In light of the widespread human rights violations and discrimination experienced by people with mental disorders are human rights perspective is essential in responding to the global burden of mental disorders the action plan emphasises the need for services policies and legislation plan strategies and programs to protect promote and respect the rights of persons with mental disorders in line with the International covenant on civil and political rights the International covenant on economic social and cultural rights convention of rights of persons with disabilities the convention of rights of the child and other relevant international and regional human rights instruments to include Equality Act 2010.

therefore

3. a Why are CAFCASS violating human rights causing further damage to person (s) with mental health afforded protection within UK /EU legislation / Global views and all of the above by taking the position that :

Service users PAST “ episodes of mental health, is, therefore a risk and therefore BEHAVIOUR is a risk regardless of medical information ?
b. What information does CAFCASS hold to disregard globally accepted medical information.

c. I put it to you again CAFCASS are violating all of the aforementioned legislation and discriminating directly and indirectly and disregarding ‘Global’ health and international medical evidence based practice. This can be seen clearly within your principle underlying public law & Adult behaviour which has potential to cause and may already have caused serious harm to PWPC, children & families; which will require statistical data to assess the negative impact. The act of me complaining about this to you here a ‘protected act’ like all the protected acts you hold therefore how many complaints classed as protected acts has CAFCASS received in 2018 ?

It seems unlikely that CAFCASS governance or any person responsible for dealing with discrimination within CAFCASS have the ability to take accountability for discrimination and violating rights appearing to continue to believe their direct/indirect discrimination is a matter for the family courts. It is not. It is a serious public interest issue for CAFCASS and you need to act Intra Vires.
It is likely that you are avoiding accountability/ transparency looking at how to scroll down FOIA looking at how you can exempt yourself ; with no remote possibility of you being rational and starting to acknowledge what you’ve done wrong. The more CAFCASS break the law the worse it gets and the degree of unreasonable irrationality on your part is as such I am informing you that I will be responding to the ‘call for evidence’ [having plenty of that] with the ‘SPOTLIGHT ON THE FAMILY COURTS Panel Parliament to demonstrate how illegally you act and how this impacts how on a vulnerable person not stopping at children & parents but now extended to grandparents are being victimised and offered no protection only inexcusable, in humane and life destroying treatment by CAFCASS breaking UK and EU law: repeatedly ultimately damaging the futures of the children [who you do not even do direct work with ] The ramifications of your rolling CIAF when implemented in real life terms show clearly with evidence as to how irrational frontline staff behave with members of the public, how in practice they break these laws in their direct work and how procedurally ignorant and illiterate they are thus breaking UK & EU Law.

You remain fixed that CAFCASS see complaints of direct/indirect discrimination as a matter for the family court when it is not their remit to deal with direct /indirect discrimination but be alive to it. CAFCASS to cover up wrongdoing at any cost are expecting any vulnerable person retraumatised/victimised PWPC by CAFCASS to seek inaccessible redress by PHSO at great tax payer expense for the PHSO and their ‘questionable in statute review process’ to bury a complaint and the ICO have made some very interesting relegations.

Carry on CAFCASS.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Or by contrast please provide the information CAFCASS hold in any policy, training, guidance, letters, emails where CAFCASS hold information internally or in the public domain that states:

1.“You have ‘had’ episodes of experiencing poor mental health and therefore your ‘behaviour’ is a risk.
The request for this information CAFCASS may hold is in the public interest to disclose.

To reduce costs you may narrow the scope to CAFCASS ref: 861437 - 9531 or any other publication (s) in the public domain where CAFCASS have used this phrase which is irrational, illegal and procedurally improper as well as unreasonable where the Equality Act, EHRA has not been applied by CAFCASS and case law not considered. If adult behaviour in CAFCASS principles underlying private law are viewing ALL adult behaviour as behaviour in isolation of legislation/case law then there is risk of severe harm and negative impacts for groups of PWPC: people with protected characteristics/ health DIAGNOSIS/CLASSIFICATIONS and subsequently any related child.

The Director General of the world health organisation Dr Margaret Chan states” mental health matters but the world has a long way to go to achieve it[as does CAFCASS] many unfortunate trends must be reversed neglect of mental health services and care and abuses of human rights and discrimination against people with mental health disorders and psychosocial disabilities .”

Key “facts” [CAFCASS like facts] of the World Health Organisation : strengthening their response:
“Mental health is an integral part of health: indeed there is no health without mental health”.

This is reflected in Family Court Practice directions 12j : “Health” means physical or mental health

2. CAFCASS having a role in proceedings please provide the information within the CIAF and within CAFCASS that aligns with the definition in the above WHO view and practice directions.

* Mental health is a state of wellbeing [everybody has mental health at some point on the spectrum]. Poor mental health is associated with physical ill health, stressful life conditions, social exclusion, discrimination and Human rights violations.
Mental health should be promoted and mainstreamed into governmental departments and integrated into effective policies including CAFCASS.
The term mental disorders is used to denote a range of mental and behavioural disorder is that fall within the international statistical CLASSIFICATION of diseases and related health problems to include but not limited to Dementia depression bipolar affective disorder schizophrenia anxiety disorders eating disorders epilepsy. The WHO plan includes the term ‘vulnerable groups’ and with the emphasis conceptualised having a positive sense of identity, ultimately ‘enabling’ full active participation in society.

World Health Organsation :

07: In light of the widespread human rights violations and discrimination experienced by people with mental disorders are human rights perspective is essential in responding to the global burden of mental disorders the action plan emphasises the need for services policies and legislation plan strategies and programs to protect promote and respect the rights of persons with mental disorders in line with the International covenant on civil and political rights the International covenant on economic social and cultural rights convention of rights of persons with disabilities the convention of rights of the child and other relevant international and regional human rights instruments to include Equality Act 2010.

therefore

3. a Why are CAFCASS violating human rights causing further damage to person (s) with mental health afforded protection within UK /EU legislation / Global views and all of the above by taking the position that :

Service users PAST “ episodes of mental health, is, therefore a risk and therefore BEHAVIOUR is a risk regardless of medical information ?
b. What information does CAFCASS hold to disregard globally accepted medical information.

c. I put it to you again CAFCASS are violating all of the aforementioned legislation and discriminating directly and indirectly and disregarding ‘Global’ health and international medical evidence based practice. This can be seen clearly within your principle underlying private law & Adult behaviour which has potential to cause and may already have caused serious harm to PWPC, children & families; which will require statistical data to assess the negative impact. The act of me complaining about this to you here a ‘protected act’ like all the protected acts you hold therefore how many complaints classed as protected acts has CAFCASS received in 2018 ?

It seems unlikely that CAFCASS governance or any person responsible for dealing with discrimination within CAFCASS have the ability to take accountability for discrimination and violating rights appearing to continue to believe their direct/indirect discrimination is a matter for the family courts. It is not. It is a serious public interest issue for CAFCASS and you need to act Intra Vires.
It is likely that you are avoiding accountability/ transparency looking at how to scroll down FOIA looking at how you can exempt yourself ; with no remote possibility of you being rational and starting to acknowledge what you’ve done wrong. The more CAFCASS break the law the worse it gets and the degree of unreasonable irrationality on your part is as such I am informing you that I will be responding to the ‘call for evidence’ [having plenty of that] with the ‘SPOTLIGHT ON THE FAMILY COURTS Panel Parliament to demonstrate how illegally you act and how this impacts how on a vulnerable person not stopping at children & parents but now extended to grandparents are being victimised and offered no protection only inexcusable, in humane and life destroying treatment by CAFCASS breaking UK and EU law: repeatedly ultimately damaging the futures of the children [who you do not even do direct work with ] The ramifications of your rolling CIAF when implemented in real life terms show clearly with evidence as to how irrational frontline staff behave with members of the public, how in practice they break these laws in their direct work and how procedurally ignorant and illiterate they are thus breaking UK & EU Law.

You remain fixed that CAFCASS see complaints of direct/indirect discrimination as a matter for the family court when it is not their remit to deal with direct /indirect discrimination but be alive to it. CAFCASS to cover up wrongdoing at any cost are expecting any vulnerable person retraumatised/victimised PWPC by CAFCASS to seek inaccessible redress by PHSO at great tax payer expense for the PHSO and their ‘questionable in statute review process’ to bury a complaint and the ICO have made some very interesting relegations.

Carry on CAFCASS.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

NB : you may redact personal details please simply provide any data/information held by CAFCASS containing

“You have had episodes of poor mental health and therefore your behaviour is a risk”.

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 'CAFCASS principles underlying private law: Indirect Discrimination'.

I believe you have applied S14 incorrectly. This request, nor any request has been vexatious.

1. NO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY FCA’s:Taking into account context and history I have indeed had to make 62 requests in 7 months with 30 internal reviews. This May have caused a strain on CAFCASS, however the reason for having to make the requests is the fault of CAFCASS. I indeed had no alternative but to generate requests, which initially were a personal matter: your contact log 7/8/18 will show clearly that a directions notice stated the purpose of meeting CAFCASS 7/8/18 was and I quote : The purpose of your meeting with CAFCASS is to ensure YOU ARE FULLY AWARE OF THE PROCESS YOU ARE NOW INVOLVED IN. You records will show this did not happen CAFCASS FCA’s frontline NOT doing as court directs. [you will have records] therefore indeed I SHOULD NOT have had to make so many requests for information but because of NO provision of it my only means has been FOIA. If CAFCASS do not explain to SU’s THE PROCESS THEY ARE INVOLVED IN which is still unbeknown then CAFCASS MUST BE TRANSPARENT. I may have to generate many many more FOIA’s simply to FIND OUT WHAT PROCESS I have been involved in but my concerns are of the risk and harm this PCP has in the public interest. IF CAFCASS had been transparent I would not have had to generate any FOIA’s.

2. TRANSPARENCY: Sarah Parson in an interview to the Transparency project provided public reassurance about any developments in CAFCASS and was emphatic about CAFCASS being ‘ABSOLUTELY TRANSPARENT’ she is quoted as saying “One of our aims is to be transparent so people know how we will assess -it can be ‘scary’ for many people. Therefore in the spirit of Ms Parsons statement AND in THE INTERESTS OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FOR PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING it is in THE PUBLIC INTEREST that the information I requested is disclosed and any FOIA’s.

3.PCP ALL ADULT BEHAVIOUR: Ms Parsons admits she described ‘whatever pathway CAFCASS were going to roll out ‘GROUNDBREAKING’. Clearly the principles underlying private law are not GROUNDBREAKING but DANGEROUS and RECKLESS with potential to cause ‘actual harm’ [none of this said with out clear cut evidence] and the principle PCP: Adult Behaviour IN ITS ENTIRETY: not ‘ one line’ is INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION where the provisions 2010 Equality Act are not provided. This PCP has, may have, could CAUSE SERIOUS HARM to PWPC and any person associated therefore CAFCASS need to be ABSOLUTELY TRANSPARENT therefore please provide the information requested.

4. This request has nothing to do with the family court. If you can not provide the information in this request then it may be a matter for a more appropriate Legal Remedy. This is because the PCP : All adult behaviour, as the principle stands is INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION which has, had or could discriminate against GROUPS of people with ‘protected characteristics’ and children and families associated with people from these protected groups where the Equality Act in real terms is not applied throughout case flow/ FCA inquiries which is unlawful.

5. PUBLIC INTEREST it is in the public interest, again as Ms Parsons has publicly stated that : ‘developments WILL NOT result in any DRACONIAN APPROACH’ . This PCP is DRACONIAN and I have outlines reasons as such in the request. People with protected characteristics have legislation that protects them from this PCP: CAFCASS require Legal advice on the status of this PCP and to balance it with relevant legislation. Not only is it DRACONIAN it puts PWPC any person/child associated at risk of serious harm.

6.There are problematic ethical issues, legal issues, public safety issues, Human Rights issues, Equality issues and MEDICAL issues and many other legislative issues this PCP raise which I believe CAFCASS may be aware of and are using S14 as an excuse and panic button to avoid providing transparent public safety information where there is risk of harm in this PCP to the public, which is a misuse of the FOIA therefore as per request CAFCASS need to justify author, source, evidence base and provide THE PUBLIC with PRINCIPLES CAFCASS are APPLYING TO THEM ; as the public have the right to be INFORMED and provide INFORMED CONSENT; particularly and vulnerable PWPC: people with protected characteristics this PCP damages. There are now serious MEDICAL implications for CAFCASS her as practice rules 12j Health = physical and mental health. In view of this CAFCASS need to justify this PCP as a ‘cogent’ belief [not simply CAFCASS belief] you do need to demonstrate it is worthy and not CONFLICTING with the fundamental rights of people with protected characteristics or any person to include children associated with them. This PCP conflicts with the cogent beliefs of the international medical profession. It appears CAFCASS have elevated themselves as ‘veracity experts’ on a Medical area outside their levels of training and remit. It is CAFCASS role to identify the ramifications of this PCP which are evident but not to CAFCASS and that is what is DANGEROUS here.

May I remind you there were many legal question marks, public confusion and media interest in any framework CAFCASS were rolling out and developments and much public interest .

7. CAFCASS appear to think I refer to ‘one line’. To be clear it is the PCP in its entirety. The PCP is irrational, procedurally improper, unlawful where the Equality Act is not applied and case law considered about behaviour in tandem and CAFCASS need to either explain the PCP or remove it to ensure people with protected characteristics are not placed at risk of harm nor children associated with their protected characteristics as if it is not clear to them the risk of harm and damage to the public then CAFCASS should seek Legal Advice

8. In addition to providing ALL of the information to ALL of the questions in the request can CAFCASS confirm if they have taken external Legal Advice about this PCP ?

[ GIVE DETAILS ABOUT YOUR COMPLAINT HERE ]

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

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

You have not applied s14 correctly. My request is not vexatious but instead in good faith, seeks information as this principle underlying private law is Indirect Discrimination and wherever CAFCASS FCA’s apply this principle in an assessment can be lead to direct discrimination as a result of indirect discrimination.

CAFCASS , as I have informed you are aware that this principle indirectly discriminates and the onus is on CAFCASS to demonstrate it is not; which CAFCASS have failed to justify.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

You have incorrectly applied S14, misusing the FOIA in relation to an internal course of prohibited conduct and unlawful behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]