F-D v The Children And Family Court Advisory Service
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIDDER QC
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a father, F-D, alleging Cafcass and its officer, Mrs. Ford, of negligence, misfeasance, and breach of his right to family life due to actions taken during family court proceedings about contact and residence of his son, R. Extensive delays and disagreements were central to the issues. The court concluded that Cafcass owed no common law duty of care to F-D, as their primary duty was towards the child, R, under the Children Act 1989. It held that there was no negligence or misfeasance by Cafcass, and no breach of Article 8 rights. Delayed complaint resolutions were recognised as maladministration but had no impact on the court proceedings.
Judgment
His Honour Judge Bidder QC:
Although the parties addressed me at the beginning of the case about the anonymisation of this judgment to avoid the possibility of distress or psychological harm to the child referred to extensively in this case, they did not take the opportunity at the end of the case to make further submissions. At the handing down of this judgment or at a later hearing if the parties cannot agree on the issues of costs and any ancillary matter, including the extent of anonymisation, if any, and the terms of the order, I shall hear further argument. However, for the time being, I am satisfied that the need to protect the child’s right to a private and family life requires the anonymisation of this judgment, to this extent, that the child shall be known as R and the Claimant’s unusual name will be referred to in the title of the case and throughout as F-D. I have referred through out to the child’s mother as “the mother” or “M” and will give initials for the courts involved in the family proceeding.
In this action the Claimant claims damages against the Defendant service for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and for a breach of his right to a family life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998 .
The action arises out of a most unhappy dispute between the Claimant and his former wife over residence and contact with their now 16-year-old son, R. The Claimant claims that as a result of the negligent advice and support given by Cafcass and, in particular, its duty officer at a hearing on 3 February 2009, namely, a family support worker (FSW), Mrs Eileen Ford, the Court made an order which effectively deprived him of continuing contact with his son. Thereafter he contends that the Defendant failed to attend a directions hearing and failed to take timely steps to prepare a welfare report which he contends would have supported his claim for contact. As a result of the behaviour of Mrs Ford at the hearing of 3 February, the Claimant made a formal complaint to Cafcass. As a result of the delays, both in the preparation of the report and in the dealing with his complaint, coupled with delays by the court, he says that he lost heart and withdrew his application for residence and contact.
He says that the same negligent behaviour which he particularises in his Particulars of Claim also amounts to misfeasance in public office and also disproportionately breached his right to priva