Fiona is correct, Onlylexus, that complaining may well backfire. There is a very good chance the complaint will be dealt with by the same officer you complain about, and they will hold any complaint against you in perpetuity.
The Cafcass complaints system has long been a source of ridicule. For a long time there was no complaints system at all, and even now you should note that there are only certain things you can complain about. The sort of allegations you are making will not be covered by their complaints system and will have to be brought up in court.
Have a look at Re N where even though the father proved that the Cafcass officer and solicitor were in contempt of court the judge ruled that they should remain on the case.
I'd probably also agree that Cafcass are not corrupt; for something to become corrupted there needs to have been a time when it was not corrupted, and Cafcass aren't necessarily any worse now than they have ever been.
Do they lack funding? Just look at how their budget has increased since 2001 - where has that money gone? Recently they were given additional funding to run their new obligations under the Children and Adoption Act; according to a parliamentary reply it had only been used to support 26 parents. Where did that money go?
They are certainly badly trained; again, look at their recruiting policy, which encourages applications by people (80% of the workforce are women) who are prejudiced against 'absent' fathers. Their training literature - which is available - is grossly sexist and anti-father, particularly on issues like domestic violence. Or read the notorious NAPO anti-sexism policy - NAPO is the union to which many FCAs belong. The policy is entirely anti men and anti families and discusses ways in which the family courts can be used to further feminist ideology. There is similar bigotry within Nagalro, the other Cafcass union.
Or consider the role played by Cafcass - and especially by Brian Kirby, who is still an FCA - in scuppering the Early Interventions project, which has been the only hope for parents for taking conflicted cases out of the courts and into
mediation. Instead of an effective programme which had huge support from everyone involved in family law it was replaced by a scheme which held that where contact was satisfactory there was no need to increase it, where it was unsatisfactory it should stop, and where there was doubt it should be suspended pending investigation.
Various organisations - e.g. ukcorruption.com, F4J, etc - have compiled dossiers on Cafcass incompetence and corruption (is there a better word?); there is absolutely no shortage of evidence.
Onlylexus also complains that the law itself is biased against fathers: mothers automatically get PR but fathers effectively only get it depending on their relationship with the mother or on application to the court (which may be challenged). Many people say the law is not biased, but it is there in the Children Act in black and white, and there are other examples in other legislation. I myself lost PR as a result of paternity fraud. I still think that technically I should still have PR or at least the right to make a s.8 application, but the judges of the RCJ and my legal team took the opposite view, and it is certainly the case that the law isn't clear, It does, however, provide an opportunity for protracted proceedings, and plenty of earning potential for the lawyers and Cafcass.
