A blunt instrument?

Send us Fan MailA few sentences in a CAFCASS report can change a child’s daily life for years, which is exactly why we slow down and question how those sentences get written. When family court decisions hinge on a Section 7 report or a safeguarding summary, the assessment can feel like it carries the weight of a full investigation, even though it often happens in a tight time window after conflict has already escalated. We talk about the “snapshot” problem: a parent can present as calm and still be unsafe, while a parent who looks anxious might be reacting to prolonged fear, not instability. We also dig into one of the hardest flashpoints in child contact cases: when a child resists or refuses seeing a parent. Guidance recognizes multiple possible causes, including domestic abuse, coercive control, harmful conflict, harmful parenting, and in evidenced cases, alienating behavior. But a child saying “no” is not proof of alienation, and it is not automatic proof of danger either. The real task is to understand meaning, using chronology, collateral records, developmental insight, and independent professional views. We challenge the way labels like “high conflict” or “aligned” can replace real analysis, create false equivalence, and hide what actually happened. Finally, we name the risk on both sides: confirmation bias. Once a professional locks onto an early story, contradictory information can get pushed aside. The standard we argue for is professional humility, transparent reasoning, and a willingness to say what remains uncertain. If you care about child welfare, family law, and better decision-making in the court system, this conversation is for you. Subscribe, share with someone navigating a contact dispute, and leave a review with the question you want professionals to ask first.