Thursday 4 January 2018

CAFCASS, Parental Alienation and the HCPP; Series Analysis No.4: Product Quality vs Marketing



This is the fourth article addressing CAFCASS’s foray into developing a Pathway to deal with parental alienation cases in family courts. This article will look at the narrative in the online section of the CAFCASS website here. The other articles in this series of critical appraisal are here , here and here.

The first thing any scientific, or even sensible approach to starting something supposedly new is to see if it is actually new at all. Where interventions involving issues of children and family are concerned, funded with public money, and levied upon families thereafter, it is a reasonable expectation of the public for any new programs to be designed by highly qualified and experienced experts with track records of being effective. To do otherwise would be not merely be disrespectful to service users but likely to do little to positively influence the very problem one is purporting to help alleviate. 

The most proven design methodology is the scientific method. The scientific method first involves perusing the work of previous experts in the same field to see if science has already addressed, evaluated and solved the same problem. Scientific principles, once established, tend to remain constant. Without the scientific approach, we may simply be wasting public money and time and busying ourselves by reinventing the wheel, and manufacturing a defective product. Even studies that do not wish to rely on previous work, for some reason or other, have to assess it to test whether the reluctance to use it is reasonable.  Sometimes, new projects do not get off the ground because referral to previous work renders the costs of new developments unnecessary, because the new intended design, and perhaps the new intended designers, are found on appraisal to be inferior to those that have gone before. 

Of course, sometimes, one has to be involved or qualified in some science or discipline, or in some way liable for failed consequences, to fully appreciate the benefits and safeguards of fine design. Medicine, engineering, agriculture and architecture, for instance, all have their scientific principles, and woe will soon betide any researcher or practitioner that chooses to wander wide of them. Social workers, however, do not adhere to scientific principles. Nor are they taught how to design. Yet the program of High Conflict Practice Pathway has been envisaged and taken forwards by CAFCASS, to produce views that will be expressed in courts to and by lawyers and judges, whose training and approach is also less than scientific. 

CAFCASS claim the tools they produce assist their practitioners obtain 'evidence', but that in itself is an assertion that needs independent scrutiny and testing. Potentially, programs designed by non-experts and non-designers can produce misleading data; this could result in the blind leading the blind, where decisions involving children could carry on as they now do: dependant on whatever assertions touted between irrelevantly trained professionals suits the ringmaster of this theater of opinion: a lower court judge. 

The first thing that is striking about the online CAFCASS article is that it reveals CAFCASS are not using the scientific method at all. The article states: “The HCPP was developed by an advisory group from Cafcass England, comprised of approximately 40 of our practitioners from across the country and led by Sarah Parsons, Assistant Director and Principal Social Worker for Cafcass.” This seems unfair on the public; people whose previous work and influences cannot be checked out, and who have no experience or training in the clinical development of public or mental health projects, are being promoted to design roles in which they are unlikely to be competently qualified. It already seems that any success of the HCPP project may be down to coincidence rather than science. 

It’s not even as if CAFCASS keeps a scientific database of their case management and its effectiveness in solving or assisting children in previous parental alienating cases. These 40 or so in-house professionals bring little but their own beliefs, influences and accounts of their otherwise untested experience with them. The lack of qualification amongst the design team is not compensated for by having a proven design engineer to oversee the project. Assistant Director Sarah Parsons may be the best social worker in the universe, but she is not a clinical or forensic expert, and perhaps should not be running what should be a clinical program designed to improve child and adult mental health. If indeed, that it what the HCPP is intended to do because, dread to think, it may otherwise be a case of inadequately trained professional meddlers cashing in on a mental health problem. 

But every project, good or bad, gets marketed. Turning to the first marketing claim about the HCPP, we are told it is:  “a practice framework being developed to help our practitioners systematically assess cases which feature adult behaviours associated with high conflict.” Very clever indeed. Because by toying with words and rebranding the purpose of the project, you can invent something new and obviate the need to refer to previous literature. CAFCASS is supposedly breaking or even pioneering new ground because none of the skilled clinicians and psychotherapists with hands-on experience of parental alienation have branded it as a ‘high conflict’ problem. CAFCASS presumably don’t have to use the scientific method, seek any previous articles, consult or hire expertise about parental alienation as a high conflict issue, because there aren’t any. Parental conflict does exist, and the effects upon a child are included in the new DSM-5 diagnostic category of 'Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress,' but it does not entirely substitute for the other, more serious clinical disorders associated with parental alienation.

Now, if CAFCASS were to have played a straight card and chose instead to assess adult behaviours associated with parental alienation, rather than parental conflict, and used the scientific method to inform themselves, they’d find some fine work having already been done by several experts, in this case beginning with Clavar and Rivlin, whose excellent book “Children Held Hostage: Identifying Brainwashed Children, Presenting a Case, and Crafting Solutions” was updated in 2014. CAFCASS could also do worse than refer to the brilliant work of expert Drs Amy J Baker and Douglas Darnall PhD, in their scientifically prepared, 2006 research entitled: “Behaviors and Strategies Employed in Parental Alienation.” They identified 66 alienation strategies supported by 1300 behaviours. Both of these research projects covered a much wider sample of cases than the HCPP will, and more thoroughly. Baker had prepared several previous articles, all peer reviewed, regularly used and cited by other expert researchers without a single problem being reported back; that is the purpose of peer review. The article Baker did with Darnall in 2006 was also compared to and found to be consistent with other high quality, peer reviewed work.  That’s how science works, you build it bit by bit and throw open the doors to reviewers. Your work had better be good, because there exist some reviewers who are extremely adept at scientific analysis and are able to destroy credibility, and sometimes even careers, with a single paragraph, if they feel you are making claims that are not readily supported by the evidence or your chosen methodology. If, however, the work done is robust, it tends to be accepted for publication in a rigorous, scientific academic journal, survive peer review, and be built upon. Some research projects are even transparent, openly inviting external researchers in during development rather than afterwards, informing them of progress and inviting them to 
comment. 

An obvious way of avoiding any criticism of claims and projects is to not submit them for genuine, open, expert peer review before implementation. Such an approach suggests that the reputations of key personnel, in this instance the CAFCASS Board, are better preserved than the well-being of those subjected to CAFCASS projects. 

CAFCASS gives the impression that peer review is happening here by claiming they are working in conjunction with ‘stakeholders,’ a vague term that, in this instance, covers the Ministry of Justice, the Court Service, the National Association of Contact Centres and the judiciary. CAFCASS have appropriated the term 'peer-review' but it does not mean here what it does in the real world; peer review prior to CAFCASS project implementation predominantly means only their stakeholders get to review, and express a view. 

The link between the stakeholders is perhaps best summed up with the definition of stakeholder as: “a person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business.” Perhaps it is only coincidence that the additional work caused and the related revenues and jobs generated by the human misery being inadequately processed through CAFCASS and these other agencies relies largely on the failed models and practices of CAFCASS. It may seem reassuring that ‘someone’ is watching CAFCASS but one has to ask: where is the clinical expertise amongst these agencies that qualifies them to be evaluating or contributing opinion to any program associated with parental alienation? 

Apparently, there are also other ‘new resources’ being introduced, but there seems no need to inform the public in this article what they may be. CAFCASS claim the HCPP links into those and tools and practices already established; the narrative is that HCPP is simultaneously forwards and backwards compatible for integration into existing  concepts designed by CAFCASS and as-yet undefined ‘new resources’ on the way. There is, anyhow, a preordained Product Life Cycle – of success and compatibility- for every CAFCASS product. For instance, the article states: “The pathway enhances our existing practice tools such as the Impact of Parental Conflict Tool….” which is an untested tool and concept, and so too early for the cement to be certified as fit for building on, or adjacent to. Also, it may be of concern that 'impact' is measured in terms of a child's expressions without consideration of any underlying clinical disorder that may be causing or contributing to the expressions. Withut this key consideration, it must surely increase the chances that a clinically ignorant CAFCASS assessor may misdiagnose and misrepresent the core problems to a court. Nevertheless, there is already a presumption the impact tool works just fine, is effectively administered, with all children's expressions properly interpreted, and is reliable enough for other CAFCASS-designed tools to be integrated with it.  As seems to be the anticipation with all CAFCASS assumptions before their infliction on children and families,  the 'tool' is presumed perfect out the box and can go ahead without testing, expert monitoring, ongoing expert evaluation or concerns about the integrity of the staff. 
A bit like Apple products working best with other Apple products, but without the science, testing, peer review and customer feedback. But then, CAFCASS has a captive audience of children and ignored service users rather than customers. 

CAFCASS seem to be manipulating words when justifying how they come to rely so heavily on their assertions and multi-product integration. They seem to have slipped the step of evaluation because for that, you need evidence. CAFCASS is not claiming HCPP builds on the evidence provided by their other projects at all; instead, the concept of “inspiration” is deployed in their narrative: “The model we’re using is inspired by our Domestic Abuse Practice Pathway (DAPP), introduced to support and strengthen the systematic assessment of cases involving domestic abuse or domestic abuse allegations.” 

Has that other DAPP ‘Pathway’ been subjected to independent peer or forensic review? Was it foreseen upon design that it would be later used as foundation, precursor, referral tool or affiliate to assessing parental alienation? If so, how? Or is there suppressed evidence arising from that pathway suggesting many cases of alleged DV are at best unsubstantiated or at worst false, and indicative of a large sample of litigants ‘working the system,’ providing instead some substantiation for the accepted fact that parental alienation in adversarial court proceedings is both widespread and on the increase. Perhaps a Freedom of Information request to CAFCASS requiring the data so far collated on the DAPP and any conclusions thus far drawn is prudent. It would be interesting to see if the data returned by CAFCASS lines up with rigorous academic research finding most family court allegations in adversarial proceedings are unsubstantiated, and asserting otherwise within a feminist-inspired model of allegation assessment really does not help courts or children at all. 

False allegations, and vehemently expressed but groundless child welfare and even child protection concerns feature heavily in alienation cases, but the word ‘false’ is not mentioned once in the DAPP document. Upon reading the DAPP literature, it seems very heavy on provision of considerations that could lead to presumptions of child abuse by targeted parents having happened rather than not. There is not a section in the DAPP providing forensic tips on how to analyse the veracity of allegations. However, ‘mental health’ is mentioned as a risk factor for domestic violence within the DAPP, whilst that consideration is conspicuously absent from the HCPP literature, where it is at least if not more relevant. Moreover, the DAPP takes precedence over the HCPP, as: “The new pathway (HCPP) will be used when it is clear that concerns relating to domestic abuse are not a feature in a case.” So whatever good that may arise out of the HCPP for a child will be delayed until what seems the equally unreliable, inconsistent, unscientific, unforensic and, in practice, the likely downright inaccurate and biased process of assessing abuse is done, which takes months at least, and provides alienators all the time they need to induce the development of severe mental health disorders in children. Whatever HCPP is, it isn’t proactive, it isn’t priority and it won’t happen quickly. 

The narrative is, however, ever hopeful. The same over-arching attitude, that accurate and positive outcomes are inevitable, is reflected in the following dramatic statement: “Bringing these together under one framework promotes a consistent and evidence-informed approach, helping practitioners find an outcome which is truly in the best interests of the children involved.” That seems less to do with true science than with speculative social engineering using dogma dressed up as children's ‘best interests.’ Parental alienation is now captured, incarcerated within and subservient to the same failed ideology and corporate maladministration that largely causes and denies its existence, now to be assessed within the domestic violence paradigm of a failed agency. A hijack? Forgive me if I feel more design goes into the propaganda marketing these projects than the public health benefits of the projects themselves. Designs of CAFCASS projects may have little to do with science, but the marketing team seem to have developed a high level of competence in maintaining power by using the science of political linguistics within a reverse, Machiavellian application of the warnings of George Orwell. 

Searching the CAFCASS article for the purpose of the HCPP yields that CAFCASS will be: “distinguishing between parental alienation and the justified rejection of a parent by a child due to inappropriate or harmful behaviour.” This is the territory of clinical experts. It seems CAFCASS are not only cutting the experts out from design, they are taking over clinical assessment roles with ideologically inspired, tick-box technology. Now, it has to be said that most expert witnesses who provide services to the family courts in parental alienation cases are not worth their instruction and do more harm than otherwise. That is not, however, a license for CAFCASS to appropriate the competent expert’s or therapist's role but for the MoJ to teach and require judges to carefully select experts, appraise their reports and rigorously impose the legal standards under which experts are obliged to operate, making use of deterrents such as issuing de facto, wasted costs orders where presumed experts turn out to be anything but. For its part, CAFCASS should not be attempting to replace competent experts in matters of clinical concern but referring to them, learning from and working alongside them. 

The article states that the CAFCASS programs will enhance existing tools, guidance and “research available to our practitioners in these cases.” This has to be simply poor rather than clever wording. CAFCASS are otherwise claiming that their own programs will enhance the parental alienation research already done. Firstly, that would seem like the tail wagging the dog and secondly, CAFCASS won’t be conducting their project with the same academic and clinical rigour as is required for entry to an academic journal, and if their work is not submitted for peer review, it won’t be ‘enhancing’ other work at all. The research “available to our practitioners” is here and some of it is amongst the best but frankly, CAFCASS practitioners hitherto have not been reading any of it. I have spoken with several CAFCASS Family Court Advisors and Guardians, and seen them questioned and cross examined in parental alienation cases. Not one knew these resources existed, or referred to them in reports, and not one even referred to them after they were made aware of their presence in the CAFCASS library. Not that this mattered much to them or the ‘court,’ as no judge bothered to care that the CAFCASS reports they nonetheless chose to rely on did not reflect the clinical science of state of the art, peer reviewed guidance but what seems an immutable, delinquent CAFCASS attitude. Similarly, a training video on parental alienation was entirely ignored by all but a handful of CAFCASS staff and Anthony Douglas, CEO of CAFCASS, retorted it was down to their vast workloads and lack of time. However, a similar FOI by the website Voice of the Child revealed the vast majority of CAFCASS staff had time to view a video on filling out their expense forms. 

Just as an endnote: Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress (CAPRD) and parental conflict could be used to the benefit of children in alienation scenarios, if CAFCASS were to build the next level of intelligent evaluation into their model. They really do not have to look far. Under the current CAFCASS and court model, parents are considered to be 'in conflict' if they cannot agree on parenting plans; so low and inerudite is the threshold and application of a label that deflects from the possibility of one parent engaging in alienation strategies as a form of abuse where a child is used as a proxy to inflict harm on the other parent or cause a separation between them. Now, CAPRD being in DSM5 means there is an associated assessment, diagnosis and treatment route that children would be entitled to where there is parental conflict. CAPRD distinctly identifies the clinical damage done to children by parental conflict, so if a competent assessment reveals evidence that one parent is actually or potentially inflicting what can now be shown as clinical harm on a child when acting as leading protagonist in an unnecessary campaign of one-sided conflict, action can be quickly taken on behalf of the child. Under this model, justification and legal obligation for intervention would fit within the existing legal model where the protagonist parent shows no likelihood or capacity for change. The action could be proactive, under the legal provision and obligation to protect a child from potential harm, even if the child is not (yet) showing signs of associated clinical disorder. Such an approach has precedent too, in V v V [2004] EWHC 1215 (Fam), where Her Justice Bracewell transferred residence of children based on the risk or harm of brainwashing (not risk of harm from parental alienation). However, for this possibility to work under the HCPP, the concept of one-sided conflict has to be accepted and wider investigation of parental conflict would have to include assessing for the presence and use of alienation strategies, psychological control and triangulation tactics, as these are the pathological parenting precursors to related, induced child clinical illness. Without this additional layer of assessment built into HCPP, it is useless, as it provides no other means of protection for the child from supposed 'conflict' than is currently, and falsely applied: removal of the separated parent from the child's life. CAFCASS gets rid of the 'conflict' by getting rid of the targeted parent. 

So, the test of CAFCASS narrative in this online article again does not appear to survive scrutiny and raises more questions than it solves, but as we advance along the relevant HCPP documentation, we hope for something more promising. See you in a few day’s time. 







x

No comments:

Post a Comment