Introduction

Matrimonial and family law is comprehensively corrupt, degenerate, and out of control of any responsible authority. The evidence for this is presented in Cheltenham Group reports :

1. The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence, 2^nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, February 1998, ISBN 1 900080 03 6.

2. The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, The Cheltenham Group, 11 June 1998.

3. Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Commission : Violations of Articles 23 & 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by the United Kingdom (UK), The Cheltenham Group, 28 April 1999.

These publications are readily available world-wide on the Internet. A convenient access is to enter at www.c-g.org.uk. Then select as follows :

• for references [1, 2], select ‘publications’ then ‘the bookshelf’

• for reference [3] select ‘campaigns’ then ‘human rights for men’.

In order to address the current corruption and degeneracy, we provide a response to the following aspects of the proposals :

Terminology and language used

This is extremely unclear. Plain English, capable of understanding by any court user, should be used.

For example what is the meaning of :

• p5 - "framework", "key elements";

• p1 - "thematic reviews".

The first terms appear to relate to policy, so why not use the plain English term "policy".

The second term is mysterious to say the least. We doubt if many members of the public know what a "thematic review" is.

The document appears to be written by an immature person who is seeking to impress his/her colleagues that they know all the trendy phrases, even when these are not explained, rather than be understandable by the public. The question of competency arises with regard to the author(s).

Recommendation : the entire document be re-written in plain English which is capable of being understood by a reasonably literate person, and by CAFCASS users especially.

Section 1.4 - Introduction

Section 1.4 states that no comments will be made about the accuracy of individual reports.

There is a major issue, as to whether CAFCASS reports are accurate. If inspection cannot comment on individual reports, then no control can exist. It would not be possible after a complaint for a new officer to be appointed and a new more accurate report produced.

No user of the courts, and of CAFCASS, could raise a complaint and get a remedy during their own case. This we find to be absolutely unacceptable.

Section 3 - The Framework

Welfare of children

Section 3.3 indicates "welfare of children" is important, and section 3.10 indicates that "CAFCASS demonstrates that it is a child-centred organisation".

It is not clear why policies such as this should be included in proposals about the inspection of CAFCASS. Such policies should only be in CAFCASS’s terms of reference. Any duplication in the inspection guidelines is not only unnecessary, but increases the maintenance burden of such documents when Government policy changes.

However, if such policy positions must be re-stated in the inspection guidelines, then it will be necessary to define them. These terms are entirely meaningless without any definitions of what "child-centred" means in terms of policy and practice. E.g. does the policy mean that parents rights are irrelevant ? The child’s interests policy has in the past been used to deny decent fathers rights over their very own children. It is therefore essential that the balance between children’s and parent’s rights should be defined, else CAFCASS officers will be free to apply any number of arbitrary decisions, as they have in the past. It is an outrage that parent’s rights and control over their children can be removed by arbitrary decision of state officials.

We would doubt if the author(s) of these proposals could state what the policies mean in practice in any given circumstances. Again, we believe the author(s) of these proposals seem incompetent to produce such significant guidelines.

No evidence is given that these policies are derived from a democratic process, i.e. are what the UK public wish.

Recommendation : all policies and such phrases used in them should be defined, to define just what they mean in practice.

Care of Service Users

Court welfare reports, in presenting facts to a court about issues that deeply affect the lives of the parties to a court case, are very important documents. The previous Court Welfare Service produced reports which were arbitrary fabrications, not guided by any written policy, and in which the concept of fault in marriage was entirely absent.

This section 3.3 deals only with physical care, courteousness and clarity of information. It does not mention two essential and fundamental concepts :

• that reports produced for courts should be accurate;

• any duty of care to the rights of innocent parties in a court case i.e. that justice and fairness is ensured in court cases, and that innocent party’s interests are protected.

The policy statements as written would ensure that CAFCASS officers should be courteous, but not necessarily tell the truth in reports, and not necessarily to protect innocent parties. So their reports could lead to stripping an innocent fathers of both children and assets, as happens at present.

We consider the present proposals to be degenerate with respect to these fundamental principles.

Recommendation : inspection policy should ensure, above all other considerations, that reports tell the truth, that justice will prevail, and that innocent parties be protected.

What is missing from the proposals

There are no provisions for individual reports to be challenged before a court case.

There is no statement about the disciplinary proceedings which can be brought against a corrupt CAFCASS officer. If there are no sanctions against a corrupt officer, there can be no real control of CAFCASS officers.

Recommendation : these omissions are remedied.

Conclusions

It appears that these guidelines are written by those who do not wish to see a remedy to the present corruption and degeneracy. Further, a question arises as to whether the policies proposed have any origin in a democratic process.

The proposals are therefore inadequate, and must be radically overhauled.

This response is published on the World Wide Web at :

http://www.c-g.org.uk/camp/mcsi.htm

(enter at http://www.c-g.org.uk selecting ‘campaigns’)

For further information you may contact :

The Cheltenham Group

via website www.c-g.org.uk