Recourse for children that Cafcass FCA's whose decisions may cause serious harm in the future in the personal view of the child.
Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,
Children of the future: "Your decision to reject your mother or father is due to a psychological defence called pathological splitting. CAFCASS were told about the impact on a child of pathological splitting in 2018 and chose to ignore the level of harm it does to a child. Instead CAFCASS cherry picked the research evidence, once again ignoring the world leading authorities on the matter and decided that leaving some of you with the parent who was inducing the psychologically split state of mind, was the best outcome for you. That left you with the lifetime legacy you now face. If you had been sexually or physically abused you would not have been left to suffer, your emotional and psychological suffering however, was not regarded by the body charged with safeguarding you, as being sufficiently serious to take the proper action." Karen Woodall 2018
Parental Alienation is not about contact, it is not about high conflict, it is not about the child’s wishes and feelings other than how the expression of those give evidence of the abuse the child is suffering.
What redress will a child have at any point in the future for example criminal proceedings, civil litigation et al if the FCA or the organisation as a whole is responsible in the view of the child who has had their contact blocked or obstructed by Cafcass or the FCA?
If it is claimed by the child that any any Cafcass or FCA decision has brought them any form of suffering in the child's perception, placed them at a disadvantage or effected their development in any way, social interaction, ability to form meaningful relationships or attachment disorders, any level of psychological health and well being of the child, any suffering that the child has perceived or if the child feels a sense of injustice regarding the decisions made for them particularly with lack of engagement with the child and amount of contact hours with the child i.e. 2-10 hours with the child to allow them to make a lifetime decision with Cafcass's limited contact time with child, thus professional judgement is wholly disputed by the child at any point in their lifetime.
How many children have disclosed any form of detriment due to Cafcass or FCA blocking and obstructing their contact to a parent/guardian/carer/family member including but not limited to these examples and how does the child seek recourse against the FCA and or Cafcass as a child, young person or adult?
Will Cafcass still remain child centred in respecting the aggrieved child's views?
Yours faithfully,
Samantha Kerr
Dear Ms Kerr,
Thank you for your email.
Please accept this as formal acknowledgement of your Freedom of
Information request which was received by Cafcass on 27 December 2018.
Your reference number is CAF18-188.
We aim to respond to your promptly, and at the latest 20 working days from
receipt of your request. You will therefore receive a response on or
before 23 January 2019.
Kind regards,
Governance Team | Cafcass
* [1][CAFCASS request email] | ü [2]www.cafcass.gov.uk
[3]Cafcass_Logo_2014_email
Dear Ms Kerr
Thank you for your email. Please find attached our response to your
Freedom of Information request.
Kind regards,
Governance Team | Cafcass
* [1][CAFCASS request email] | ü [2]www.cafcass.gov.uk
[3]Cafcass_Logo_2014_email
Cafcass email addresses have changed to end in @cafcass.gov.uk. Please
ensure you update your address book. For more information on this change
please see our [4]website
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Samantha Kerr (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Coached Children are coerced, coercive behaviour using a child and using Gillik Competence as as shield is child abuse, and when applied from partner A to partner B to cause psychological and emotional abuse is domestic abuse, as it using third parties including all inter agency’s involved in perpetuating a psychological violence against Parent B. Not only that, but by ignoring in the least the safeguarding or child protection concern from parent b whilst upholding the concern from parent a, is not fulfulling your statutory duty in regards to safeguarding and child protection legislation.
Children who are in an alienated position or who are at risk of this are very likely to want someone to intervene on their behalf (Baker 2012). By the time professionals reach these children, they are already placed at the top of the family hierarchy and have been given the power by the aligned parent, to make decisions which are not rightfully theirs. In this sense, children in this position are are in serious danger of being further abused by those who are trying to help, especially if those people are unable to break the bind that the child is facing (Gottleib 2012). The nature of the bind being that the child has moved to a place of upholding the parent's implacable hostility by rejecting the other parent but is upholding this as being of their own choosing. In reality, children in this position have not chosen to act but are being forced to do so through the emotional and psychological pressure being applied by the parent in whose care they spend most of the time. Intervening in such family systems therefore becomes a matter of ensuring that the work that is done with the family as a whole, alleviates rather entrenches the problem and matches it with a treatment route which has the best chances of success. Differentiation of the dynamics in a family system is the biggest step to achieving this.
https://www.karenwoodall.com/articles-1/