13. Understanding Cafcass recommendations

What is the legal status of a Cafcass recommendation?

A recommendation from a Family Court Adviser is professional evidence and advice. It does not bind the judge or magistrates.

Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration when the court determines a question concerning the child's upbringing. The court therefore has to carry out its own welfare evaluation using all of the relevant evidence.

A Cafcass recommendation is often important because it follows professional social-work assessment focused on the child. But there is no rule that the recommendation becomes the court's starting position or presumptive outcome.

Can a judge accept some parts of the report but not the recommendation?

Yes.

The court may accept observations made by the FCA, accept parts of the child-impact analysis and agree that identified risks require attention, while nevertheless reaching a different conclusion about the final arrangements.

Equally, the court may accept the ultimate recommendation while reaching that outcome for somewhat different reasons.

The task is an overall welfare evaluation, not a binary choice between “accept Cafcass” and “reject Cafcass”.

How should a Cafcass recommendation be read?

Before analysing the recommendation, read the court order that directed the Cafcass work.

The order should identify the welfare questions or issues the professional was asked to address. That matters because the recommendation should be understood within the scope of the work the court actually requested.

Break the report into its component parts

One of the easiest mistakes is to treat every sentence in a Cafcass report as if it has the same evidential status.

Follow the recommendation backwards

A useful way of testing a report is to work backwards from the recommendation.

For example, suppose the recommendation is that a child should move from living with one parent to living with the other.

Do not stop at: “Cafcass recommends a change of living arrangements.”

Ask:

• What welfare concern is the proposed move intended to address?
• What evidence establishes or supports that concern?
• Is the evidence current?
• Does it consist of findings, records, observations or disputed accounts?
• What impact on the child has been identified?
• What are the disadvantages of the proposed change?
• Have those disadvantages been weighed against the expected benefit?
• What alternatives were considered?
• How is the change intended to work in practice?

What does Cafcass itself require of reports?

Cafcass's Reporting to Court Policy says reports should identify a clear basis for recommendations and contain relevant child-focused information that evidences the child's voice and provides an evidence-base for the recommendation.

That is an important practical benchmark when analysing a report.

Does the evidence actually support the recommendation?

The central question is not simply whether there is evidence somewhere in the file. The question is whether the evidence relied upon supports the professional reasoning and whether that reasoning supports the recommended welfare outcome.

The statutory welfare checklist

Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 contains the welfare checklist. Rule 16.33 of the Family Procedure Rules requires an officer carrying out relevant welfare-reporting duties to have regard to the applicable statutory welfare factors.

This provides another useful structure for testing a recommendation.

Look for missing counter-evidence

A report does not have to reproduce every document in the case. But if material evidence points in another direction, it may matter whether the FCA has considered it.

Examples might include:

• school records inconsistent with an asserted presentation;
• medical records relevant to an alleged incident;
• previous court findings;
• earlier professional assessments reaching materially different conclusions;
• evidence of arrangements working successfully over a significant period;
• or evidence showing that a factual premise has changed.

The question is always materiality: would the omitted evidence realistically matter to the welfare reasoning?

Child's wishes, safeguarding risk and disputed allegations

The child's wishes are not automatically the recommendation

A child's ascertainable wishes and feelings are an important welfare factor, considered in light of age and understanding.

But three different things should be kept separate:

• what the child actually said or communicated;
• the professional assessment of what those wishes and feelings may mean;
• and the FCA's ultimate recommendation about welfare.

Those may point in the same direction. They do not have to.

What if the recommendation relies on allegations that remain disputed?

Cafcass can assess safeguarding information, identify potential risk and advise the court.

But a Family Court Adviser cannot make a binding judicial finding that a disputed allegation of domestic abuse or other misconduct is true.

Practice Direction 12J and the factual platform

Where domestic abuse is relevant, PD12J requires the court to consider whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary to provide a factual basis for a welfare report, an accurate assessment of risk or the final welfare decision.

If findings or admissions have already been made, the later welfare analysis should start from that factual platform.

That means established abuse should not quietly revert to being described merely as one parent's “allegation”.

Equally, an allegation that has never been determined should not quietly acquire the status of a finding merely because it has been repeated in successive documents.

How do you respond if you disagree with Cafcass?

First identify what kind of disagreement you actually have.

A factual error, omitted evidence, disputed allegation and disagreement with professional judgment are not the same problem.

Use a recommendation-response matrix

For a complex report, a structured schedule can be far more useful than a long narrative response.

Do not turn the response into a line-by-line grievance document

Not every phrase you dislike requires correction.

Prioritise:

• material factual errors;
• important omissions;
• mischaracterised court findings;
• assumptions affecting risk;
• reasoning that materially affects the recommendation;
• and welfare consequences for the child.

A long response correcting trivial details can make the important points harder to see.

Why simply alleging “bias” is usually weak

Bias is a serious allegation. It should not be used as a substitute for analysing evidence and reasoning.

If the real issue is that the FCA:

• relied heavily on one source but not another;
• failed to consider a material document;
• misunderstood an order;
• treated an allegation as established;
• did not explain a change of professional position;
• or reached a recommendation that does not logically follow from the analysis;

say that specifically and evidence it.

Hearing strategy, questioning the FCA and key authorities

Can the Family Court Adviser be questioned?

Yes.

Rule 16.33(5) of the Family Procedure Rules expressly provides that a party may question the officer about oral or written advice tendered to the court.

That does not mean that the FCA automatically attends every hearing.

Practice Direction 12B provides that when the court is giving case-management directions it should address whether the author of a section 7 report is required to attend to give oral evidence. Before directing attendance, the court should consider why attendance is necessary and the issues on which the officer will give evidence.

What might proper questions explore?

Depending on the case and the court's directions, relevant areas may include:

• the factual basis for a recommendation;
• the source and reliability of significant information;
• whether particular evidence was considered;
• how conflicting evidence was weighed;
• the distinction between allegation and finding;
• how the child's wishes and feelings were evaluated;
• the identified welfare impact;
• the alternatives considered;
• why one arrangement was preferred over another;
• or whether later developments materially affect the recommendation.

Should you ask for an addendum report?

Sometimes further Cafcass work is necessary. That might be because:

• important findings have subsequently been made;
• material information was unavailable during the original assessment;
• there has been a significant change in the child's circumstances;
• the court requires assessment of a new or unresolved issue;
• or the original recommendation cannot safely be evaluated without further work.

But an addendum report is not automatically appropriate merely because a party dislikes the first recommendation.

PD12B specifically cautions against unnecessary review hearings and addendum section 7 reports. The question should be what further assessment the court genuinely needs for the child's case to be decided.

Put these documents side by side

Before preparing a response, it is often useful to compare:

1. the latest sealed court order;
2. the order directing the Cafcass work;
3. the current Cafcass report;
4. any earlier safeguarding letter or previous Cafcass assessment;
5. any schedule of allegations and responses;
6. any judicial findings or recorded admissions;
7. the documents relied upon for the key recommendation;
8. any important evidence that appears inconsistent with the report;
9. the child's relevant school, health or social-care material where lawfully available and relevant;
10. and the actual order each party is asking the court to make.

Primary sources and official guidance

1. Children Act 1989 — section 1 — welfare principle and welfare checklist.
2. Children Act 1989 — section 7 — welfare reports concerning children.
3. Family Procedure Rules 2010 — Part 16 — including rule 16.33 and the right to question the officer about advice tendered to the court.
4. Practice Direction 12B — Child Arrangements Programme — section 7 reports, welfare issues, case management, FCA attendance and addendum reports.
5. Practice Direction 12J — Domestic Abuse & Harm — disputed allegations, fact-finding, risk assessment and welfare decision-making.
6. Cafcass — Reporting to Court Policy — requires a clear basis and evidence-base for recommendations.
7. Cafcass — Section 7 Reports — current information about welfare assessment, reports and factual inaccuracies.
8. Cafcass — Complaints and Feedback — distinguishes complaints from challenges to professional assessments and recommendations.
9. D (Change of Circumstances: Domestic Abuse Allegations) [2026] EWCA Civ 969 — current Court of Appeal authority on disputed allegations, risk assessment and Cafcass recommendations.
10. Y v E (Reasons for Departing from Cafcass Recommendation) [2025] EWHC 2437 (Fam) — judicial discretion to depart from a Cafcass recommendation where proper reasons are given.
11. GI v K [2026] EWHC 480 (Fam) — professional welfare recommendations, domestic-abuse issues and the need for adequate judicial reasoning.