Problems with CAFCASS and the shortage of its officers in certain parts of the country has caused a rethink of the philosophy of using the resource of its officers generally, writes District Judge Anne Sturdy

Not so long ago, a report under the Children Act 1989 (CA) section 7 would be produced in ten to12 weeks.

Furthermore, it was virtually routine for advocates to ask for a report and for one to be ordered in any case where there was a dispute about children (whether it was about their residence, contact, holidays or education).

Likewise, advocates would ask for reports whenever the views of a child were relevant and the child was old enough for those views to be taken into account.

The Court of Appeal has made it clear that in only exceptional circumstances should judges see a child, and other than dealing with the parties themselves, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) officer is the eyes and ears of the court.

In a child case where a report is ordered, the CAFCASS officer fully investigates and then prepares a comprehensive report.

The judge is not to deviate from it without giving express reasons.

The onus is on a party who does not accept the findings and the conclusions of the CAFCASS officer to persuade the court not to act on them.

But is the obtaining of a report now a luxury in which we cannot continue to indulge in many cases, not only in terms of resources, but also in terms of the interests of the child? In some courts, a wait of four to five months is not uncommon and in others there is now a delay of six to eight months in receiving a report that has been ordered.

The court must have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining any question with respect to the upbringing of children is likely to prejudice their welfare (CA section 1 (2)).

The price children have to pay because of the delay in resolving their futures may be a price too high.

The welfare of the child is the court's paramount consideration (CA section 1(1)), and in courts where there are now serious delays in the preparation of a full CAFCASS report, various initiatives are being considered and taken.

In-court conciliation schemes are a feature in many family centres, and the senior district judge issued a direction on 12 March 2004 from the Principal Registry of the Family Division, to take effect from 22 March 2004, extending the scheme at the Principal Registry ([2004] All ER (D) 97 (Apr)).

Under CA section 8, not only will direct applications or applications to vary or to discharge section 8 orders now be listed when issued in one of five conciliation lists each week - but also applications for an order under section 13 for leave to cause a child to be known by a new surname, or to remove the child from the UK, or to vary or discharge such an order.

Other matters where a conciliation listing direction is likely to be given relate to compliance with the matrimonial causes act 1973 section 41 and wardship summonses.

At the conciliation appointment, the district judge will be attended by a CAFCASS officer and the hearing will be conducted with a view to the parties reaching an agreement.

The direction contains a reminder that conciliation is a legally privileged occasion, and that all the discussions will be privileged and will not be disclosed on any subsequent hearing (other than at a further conciliation appointment).

Unless excused by the district judge, a child aged nine or older must be brought to the appointment to be seen by the CAFCASS officer, and where that child attends, if there is a younger child to whom the application relates, that child may also attend.

In Kingston upon Thames County Court, a CAFCASS report ordered today is unlikely to be available before December.

Recently, its own conciliation scheme was extended.

At the first hearing - almost invariably for conciliation and directions - the district judge with the assistance of the CAFCASS officer will identify cases where the real and priority issue is the determination of the child's wishes and feelings.

In those cases, the parties will be offered a meeting of 90 minutes on another day at the local CAFCASS office.

At that meeting, the parties will be seen first by an officer to establish the context of the dispute and the areas of disagreement.

The child, who must be at least six years old, will then be seen alone by the officer.

Later that same day, the officer will attend court with the parents and report orally to the district judge the ascertainable views of the child.

If there still remains a dispute between the parents, the officer will withdraw and the district judge will conduct a dispute resolution hearing.

If this fails, the court will list the case for an early hearing, give directions for the filing of statements, and request the reporter to put his oral report in writing.

If a parent disputes the information given to the court, the officer will be required to attend the subsequent court hearing.

The district judge will have no further involvement other than to give further directions if necessary.

The meeting between the CAFCASS officer and the parents and the child is not privileged; it is no different from a meeting that would have been required as part of the preparation of a full report.

The dispute resolution hearing in the afternoon is privileged, and for this reason it is important not to compromise the officer by having him involved in the dispute resolution with the district judge.

So far, the scheme has led to an agreement approved by the court in every case.

The extension of the conciliation schemes at the Principal Registry of the Family Division and Kingston County Court are two examples of initiatives that the CAFCASS recruitment crisis has inspired.

It is vital for advocates to consider with the judge whether a section 7 report really is necessary and whether the delay in obtaining it is justifiable, or if it is possible to present the evidence to the court in another way.

Lateral thinking is the order of the day.

Most judges who regularly deal with private law CA cases now accept that they must often just get on and conduct final hearings without a report.

By working together, practitioners and the judiciary will still be able to achieve the right result for children.

District Judge Anne Sturdy sits at Kingston upon Thames County Court and is nominated to deal with public and private law children cases