Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

1. What guidance on providing reasonable adjustments under 2010 Equality Act was available to CST managers in 2018 month on month ?

2. What date did your existing guidance in 2018 available to service managers that face to face meetings should only be offered where the service user did not have the capacity to instruct a solicitor change ?

3.a. Please provide the information including the date that the Cafcass complaints procedure started to allow for reasonable adjustments to be made to accommodate an individuals particular need ?

b. What information does Cafcass hold and has held since 2010 Equality Act came into force to allow for reasonable adjustments to be made to accommodate an individuals particular need(s)

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.

Thank you for your response I would like an internal review please.Is it a requirement of data protection to state whether you do or do not hold the information I request if so please confirm that you hold or do not hold the following question. For clarity can you review the information you have provided.

Could you please confirm , in the calendar year 2018 did Cafcass customer services managers have information provided to them concerning face to face meetings with. Service users when investigating a complaint and that advice was that “face to face meeting should only be offered where the service user did not have the capacity to instruct a solicitor” ?

Thank you

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

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Thank you for your response. It appears CAFCASS Governance are not aware of information Senior service managers within CAFCASS hold and pass to customer service managers and subsequently service user which is contrary to your response.

1.Your Customer service team, service manager Laura Grosscurth has confirmed that in 2018 CAFCASS did in fact have and provide information to service user advice that “face-to-face meetings should only be offered where the service user did not have capacity to instruct a solicitor” and that Ms Foggo provided this information to Ms Johal and was based upon “The existing guidance at that time” therefore can you provide this please

2. If it helps please narrow the scope and please provide any letters, emails of Laura Grosscurth, Pauline Foggo, Hema Johal showing where they have provided information to any member of the public between November 2018 and 6/3/19 stating that existing advice available to ‘Senior service manager’ Ms Foggo was “that face to face meeting should only be offered where the service user did not have the capacity to instruct a solicitor” [ you can redact all personal information simply provide the date and the information where these words have been used ] therefore please provide this information. If this information is being sent to member of the public please provide this transparently in this request.

3. a.You refer to the wording in your complaints procedure 1.4 which states:

“ reasonable adjustments are made for complainant’s with disabilities or those who otherwise need help in submitting their complaint under Cafcass diversity and inclusion strategy”

Can you please point to the wording in 1.4 that as you say : “ The wording leaves room for Cafcass customer services manager to use their professional judgement and the decision to make reasonable adjustments (including a face-to-face meeting) with the service user has never been linked to litigation capacity. “
I can not see in 1.4 any wording that leaves room for managers to use their judgement could you please “point to the wording” in 1.4

You refer to your diversity and inclusion strategy but as I’ve pointed out before it still appears that this addresses : Child impact, inclusive employer and staff diversity; not adult service users.

Unfortunately your response and the links do not provide the information as per original request. Please provide this to avoid me having to generate a new FOIA’ (s) as your response generates further information concerns.

Could you please kindly provide this information and to alleviate any burden on CAFCASS and to avoid overlaps I would be more than happy to wait until you have responded to CAF19-104 and then CAF 19-107 which gives you plenty of time to narrow your scope to find the information held by Senior service manager/customer service manager stating a face-to-face meeting should only be offered where the service users did/does not have the capacity to instruct a solicitor.

If it is helpful to Governance I will arrange for this information to be sent directly to you so that you can be very clear on this site when you respond. If in the meantime you find you have made an error in your response to me please feel free to provide a more accurate response.
Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Also apologies as I had meant to include where you bolt on at the end “ The wording leaves room for Cafcass customer services manager to use their professional judgement and the decision to make reasonable adjustments (including a face-to-face meeting with the service user) * has never been linked to litigation capacity *

Could you please assist me in clarifying your meaning. I don’t understand what you mean by *has never been linked to litigation capacity*. I would be most grateful if you could assist and explain what you mean about litigation capacity within the context of your response.

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Re: your “BOLT ON” [which in itself is worthy of a new FOI however, ] :

Where a person has a mental health DIAGNOSIS [clinically defined] capacity can VARY OVER TIME. This can include varying EVEN OVER THE COURSE OF A DAY let me explain:
i.e a person may have anorexia Nervosa and during proceedings which may affect the SU one may relapse and therefore LOOSE CAPACITY during periods of loss of appetite/starvation/semi starvation/malnutrition; a result of which capacity can vary throughout the day, week, month, year.
Likewise with Epilepsy where capacity may be lost over the course of a day with seizures, then weekly, monthly etc
Likewise with PTSD where the sufferer May experience reliving an event and ‘dissociate’ loosing capacity for minutes, hours, days etc
Each health/mental health DIAGNOSIS has unique ways in which the SU’s capacity may vary over time therefore CAPACITY can be fluctuating in nature.
1. Therefore when CAFCASS become aware a service users mental health diagnosis is triggered/exacerbated by proceedings then how exactly does CAFCASS identify whether the SU has capacity to instruct a solicitor ?
and
2. Where mental health is exacerbated by proceedings what SPECIAL MEASURES does CAFCASS put in place and how does CAFCASS then link in or reassess whether or not a SU has ‘litigation capacity’ ?

Lastly for the benefit of CAFCASS Governance. ‘If’ you are using S14 of the FOIA taking personal aspects of a SU case to apply this exemption [incorrect CAFCASS judgements] then Governance in some sense must be aware of the SU’s ACTUAL complaints therefore where you can clearly see the Equality Act and other legislation breached each member of CAFCASS Governance to include Head of Legal are therefore able to ‘blow the whistle’. Remember CAFCASS proclaim to be child focused and each member stops being child focused when the Equality Act is breached.

There is no Equality for Children where the Equality Act is not applied.

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 'Equality Act Guidance available to CST Managers/Cafcass'.

You are applying S14 incorrectly. This request is not vexatious. You are saying that CAFCASS does not hold the information I have requested however, it does. I have been provided information that you, governance state CAFCASS do not hold therefore please provide the information as I have helpfully directed you to the persons within CAFCASS who ‘do hold and issue this information and further ‘issue it’

If governance are stating CAFCASS does not hold this information but CERTAIN CAFCASS DO HOLD AND ISSUE IT to the public then there is a problem of dishonesty and accuracy here.

I am requesting you obtain the information, from the people in CAFCASS who hold it and make it ABSOLUTELY TRANSPARENT in this request. Please in the spirit of GDPR provide an ‘accurate response’.

I can reassure governance CAFCASS DO HOLD THIS INFORMATION and you can not deem a request vexatious because CAFCASS staff are providing information that governance say they don’t hold.

Reasonable adjustments and the recording process is a legal requirement. If CAFCASS SENIOR staff are providing guidance you are saying you don’t hold then there is a problem with incorrect application of the Equality Act and service failure. It may be embarrassing to CAFCASS to provide the accurate transparent information being issued within CAFCASS, however because it has been produced then please provide the information I have requested.

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

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

I am, in good faith, going to ask you to reply with ‘accuracy’ and in good faith with honesty one more time to provide me with this information.

It is a serious matter and dishonest and many other things where CAFCASS governance are stating on FOIA that CAFCASS staff do not have ‘guidance of this nature’ when in fact they do and further guidance of this nature IS BEING SENT BY YOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER TO THE COURT so how governance can say CAFCASS does not hold guidance of this nature is dishonest, to say the least. Then there are ramifications upon the Equality Act and other relevant legislation to include the mental health act; which actually DOES protect people with protected characteristics.

I am going to assist you to narrow the scope:

Hema Johal HAS PROVIDED this information to SU and the family court. ( therefore governance can easily locate this held information)
Ms Pauline Foggo HAS providing this information to your CST so governance can locate this information
and Laura Grosscurth HAS PROVIDED the explanation that Ms Foggo’s advice “WAS BASED ON EXISTING GUIDANCE AT THAT TIME therefore in good faith and with honesty please provide this inform as CAFCASS DOES HOLD THIS INFORMATION and it is in THE PUBLIC INTEREST for CAFCASS to provide this information TRANSPARENTLY as they are ACCOUNTABLE if they are providing guidance that breaches the Equality Act.

I will assume that governance have previously NOT been aware that GUIDANCE OF THIS NATURE WAS AVAILABLE and shared between CAFCASS Senior service manager, service manager, CS Manager , SU and the court. You can not deem a requester vexatious where the SU (I) hold information/ guidance you say CAFCASS doesn’t hold. S14 is not a device to be used against a requester when the requester challenges dishonest and in accurate responses from CAFCASS governance. That is misuse of the FOIA. The information I request may be uncomfortable and show unlawful guidance under Equality Act which CAFCASS hold but that does not give you reason to deem the requester vexatious where CAFCASS SSM are utilising guidance of this nature.

I trust now that I have ‘assisted you’ and directed you to exactly where the information IS HELD you can respond ‘accurately’ to my request and that you will respond in good faith and with honesty and integrity.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,
You seem to misunderstand the information I originally requested therefore I am going to narrow the scope for you to provide the information you do in fact hold :

FOIA request 30/3/19 I asked for the information 2: what date did your existing guidance in 2018 available to service managers that face to face meetings should only be offered where the service user did not have the capacity to instruct a solicitor CHANGE

To be clear you responded saying CAFCASS does not hold guidance of this nature. I have told you CAFCASS does indeed hold guidance of this nature and provides this information to SU and the information within CAFCASS correspondence is in fact provided to the court therefore:

because unbeknown to governance CAFCASS does hold this guidance so please answer the question providing the dates this information changed i.e what dates did this guidance change to mean when did CAFCASS ‘stop’ providing this guidance

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 'Equality Act Guidance available to CST Managers/Cafcass

In my opinion I believe under section 77 FOIA you may be blocking and concealing this information or preventing disclosure. I can confirm I hold a letter where CAFCASS hold this information. CAFCASS have sent information and you are saying CAFCASS don’t have guidance of this nature yet they do because I have been sent by CAFCASS therefore please provide me with an accurate response.
Please provide the information that

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

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

Please see letter below sent by Laura Grosscurth Service Manager CST CAFCASS customer services ref:861437-9531 dated 05 March 2019.

Dear Ms Soeder

Thank you for your letter which is dated 20 November 2019. It was received by the customer services team on 04 March 2019.

I am aware that Ms Hema Johal (service manager Cafcass customer services team), Provided a written response to your previous complaint reference 861437-9531, which is dated 28 November 2018.

You made a subject access request and this was closed to Cafcass on 20 December 2018 as the relevant information was provided to you.

Your letter of 20 November is in relation to some of the information which was made available to you you have raised concerns about the advice which Miss Pauline Foggo (senior service manager Cafcass customer services team) provided to Ms Johal with regards to your request for a face-to-face meeting about your complaint.

Ms Foggo’s advice was based upon the existing guidance at that time, which had been provided to the Customer Services Managers concerning face-to-face meeting with service users when investigating a complaint. The advice was that a face -to -face meeting should only be offered where the service user did not have the capacity to instruct a solicitor.

As stated at the end of Ms Johal’s written response to your complaint , “This response represents the end of CAFCASS’ Complaints Procedure, If you remain dissatisfied, you may wish to contact the office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via an MP, More information on that process and what the Ombudsman is able to consider can be found at www.ombudsman.org.uk or by calling 0345 015 4033.”

Yours sincerely

Laura Grosscurth
Service Manager
Customer Service Team

1. The above is information CAFCASS service manager provides. Can you confirm this is the advice CAFCASS service manager customer service team provided because if you are saying that the above information is not provided to SU by SM CST then there is a problem with inaccurate information. Is the above letter authentic and ‘accurate’ information CAFCASS SM CST provided or not ‘accurate’

2. Was Ms Foggo’s advice honest and ‘accurate’ based upon existing guidance at that time which had been provided to customer services managers concerning face to face meetings with service users when investigating a complaint ? Please provide the information Ms Foggo had available to her: the existing guidance at ‘that time’

Based on the above letter of Laura Grosscurth please provide the information I originally requested which was :

1. What guidance on providing reasonable adjustments under 2010 Equality Act was available to CST managers in 2018 month on month

2. What date did your existing guidance in 2018. ( as above CAFCASS letter) available to service managers that face to face meetings should only be offered where the service user did not have capacity to instruct the solicitor change ?

and please provide the information as per original request 3a & b

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Kevin Gibbs,

Thank you for your apology which is a step forward for CAFCASS, however whilst the apology is a start it does not go far enough in that under your GDPR obligations there is further action required of you, as advice I have now been provided.

This, as you could reasonably know, would mean that you should now be in real terms undertaking ‘actions’ to my complaints and for you to identify how the data breaches as outlined throughout this request affected me not only as an individual but affected the child connected to me.

You would be aware that under your GDPR obligations that you are required to carry out an assessment on how the inaccurate data from Ms Foggo, Ms Johal and Ms Grosscurth impacted upon me personally. This means you have to now properly assess the damage the inaccurate data provided to me had upon me and the distress it caused me.

As you will understand it is not only the impact of inaccurate data that has caused irrevocable damage but Equality Act discrimination that happened because of the inaccurate data that I received because it had the added affect that the reasonable adjustments which are a legal requirement were not considered. This discrimination caused a knock on effect as the inaccurate data caused a severe trail of strands of discrimination in multiple forms.

Your Legal team should have been able to identify inaccurate data was being provided to me by Ms Foggo and Ms Johal when they were informed, as they ought to have been about decisions regarding reasonable adjustments. If I had had ‘accurate’ information provided nearly a year ago November 2018 then CAFCASS staff could have followed a proper course of conduct but because inaccurate data was supplied it has caused serious irrevocable lifelong damage because an improper course of conduct emanated from inaccurate data. This could have been completely avoided by provision of accurate data and CAFCASS implementing it in practice. Because inaccurate data was provided severe damage over a protracted period of months happened which continues.

In this response you have provided me with an apology which if it is indeed in good faith then it means that you will act within your GDPR obligations as I have now outlined.

I now anticipate CAFCASS will contact me to undertake this assessment; it’s impact and distress caused as I believe is required of you under GDPR.

I also had to be persistent for you to issue this apology I was incorrectly considered vexatious twice which I challenged which shows the extreme lengths, in reality someone has to go to where CAFCASS are being dishonest, concealing information, providing inaccurate information which has the effect of destroying lives as has happened in this case.

If you ignore this response I will pursue further action if you ignore your obligations under GDPR to undertake a proper assessment of impact and distress. It can reasonably be expected you personally will now act procedurally properly and in good faith.

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 'Equality Act Guidance available to CST Managers/Cafcass'.

Mr Gibb,

You will be aware now that the information you have provided about ‘inaccurate’ information I was given was Indirect discrimination which consequently led to direct discrimination and failure to provide reasonable adjustments: a legal requirement. Having provided this response you will now be aware that CAFCASS should be addressing these discrimination complaints if it is accurate that CAFCASS put things right as in 12 months I see no evidence of this; quite the opposite.

Your apology provides information about ‘capacity’; capacity being fluctuating depending on the SU medical condition yet CAFCASS show no consideration to capacity in this decision making process so whilst I appreciate you have tried to apologise the information is not accurate or consistent with CAFCASS practice.

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

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Governance,

I no longer require an internal review as the web of dishonesty and inaccuracy of CAFCASS far exceeds an internal review.

Over 100 FOIA’s clearly shows CAFCASS are not operating within the law set by Parliament nor under the rules and directions of the family courts.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]