In this brief exposé 2019 a judge offers his opinions about the potential dangers to children posed in his view by Cafcass.
Those issues above, raised by the judge are indeed very serious. As a teacher of adolescents and young adults for 28 years, in my mind the Cafcass position re gender pronouns is indefensible. This clip, by a McKenzie Friend, exposes, also in my view, exactly what the position of very nearly every parent would be. Gender Parity includes this Cafcass text on its website.
RESPECT is the ideologically biased charity which became the proxy “accreditor” of the DAPP programmes which Cafcass would fund.
Here is a link to the timeline which tracks the 30 year failure of the Respect style accredited programmes to engage with men. Those programmes were what was required by Cafcass before they were decommissioned in June 2022. Two recently “accredited” programmes by Respect now require 18 evenings compared with 26-32 and are for groups of men numbering between 12 and 16. In the old style “rolling programmes” as some men dropped out new individuals were permitted to join the programme.
The Family Court practice direction, PD 12j, refers to “alleged victims” and “alleged abusers”. The research facts are that both individuals are, on balance, likely to be both “victim and abuser. Of course those labels are immediately converted by Women’s Aid and Refuge to “perpetrator” with the verbal inference being of having committed a crime, and “survivor” of someone whose life has been in danger.
Cafcass in the Family Courts: Often a “finding of facts hearing” will, “on the balance of probability,” find the fact” and thus treat an individual as “guilty” of the behaviours of which he or she has been alleged to have used. If the individual accepts all those finding of facts he may have been eligible to be forwarded to an “Accredited programme”. But if he did not accept, 100%, all the findings of fact then there was no programme available to him. The “accredited programmes” were usually between 26 and 32 weeks long. Historically less than 25% of men have completed these programmes – so it would be wise to ask an “accredited programme” just what their completion rate is.
Cafcass funded 909 places in 2019 at a cost of £1.2 m. They cannot tell you how many men completed. My freedom of information request (FOI) revealed that Cafcass received mid-way reports on 32% of the referred men.
Because of the radical feminist beliefs of the accreditor, a charity called RESPECT, there is no course available for female abusers other than ours. Some of the many problems with the “accredited programmes” which Cafcass would historically recommend are on this link
Following the Panorama film broadcast on 8th October 2018 – Can violent men change? The i-payer link is here. The programme is no longer available via the link.
The Youtube link to my response is here. The content of the clip with the further references is linked here.
Terry White, McKenzie friend and David Eggins in conversation about Cafcass and a Judge’s unhappiness with the unhelpful, obstructive and unaccountable practice, suggesting it is the “philosophy” of Cafcass. Does he really mean following the Feminist Ideology words?
RESPECT and some of the problems with the ineffectiveness of the so-called “accredited” perpetrator programmes, DAPP’s. Terry and David discuss.
Dr H, a clinical psychologist and risk assessor. In an assessment he wrote to Cafcass as follows: Therapeutic approaches based on Duluth domestic violence education programmes for men are often recommended for male perpetrators of domestic violence. The Duluth model is an educational approach that is programme centred, challenging, confrontational and rigid. These programmes are based on an educational approach in which the perpetrator will often suppress their abusive behaviours during treatment. (Jewel and Wormith 2010). Meta-analytic studies of Duluth type educational approaches have consistently found that domestic violence education programmes for men that are based on Duluth pro-feminist model result in no long-term reduction in intimate partner violence (Slabber 2012). Approaches that appear to have more positive outcomes to the Duluth model identify individual criminal criminogenic risk factors, target dynamic need and risk factors, target multiple needs, promote behavioural change and develop social and communication skills. More therapeutic approaches are client centred, empathic, engage the client, are responsive to a client’s needs, and result in a reduction of IPV. The research literature clearly indicates that an effective approach for male perpetrators of IPV is to provide therapeutic treatment that focuses on the perpetrator’s own traumatic history and other individual difficulties (Vlais, 2014). It has been found that courses involving more than 36 hours of education and therapy do not have any better outcomes than courses involving less than 36 hours of intervention work (Paulin, 2014). The group based course offered by Temper does address IPV issues and a number of local authorities refer clients to the organisation. A client was concerned that Cafcass had informed him that the course run by Temper is not a recognised course for domestic violence perpetrators. I would assume that this reflects that the course run by Temper is not accredited by RESPECT — a self appointed organisation in the UK that accredits domestic violence perpetrator programmes that are primarily based upon The Duluth model.
Cafcass and their use of Gender pronouns Author and senior fellow at Do No Harm.
I have been taking care of patients for 45 years. I’m going to use my time to respond to Dr McNamara. First I’m struck by her use of the phrase “sex assigned at birth.” Sex is not assigned at birth. Sex is established at conception, and it’s recognised at birth, if not earlier. Dr McNamara claims that her views are science based but to claim that sex is assigned at birth is without any scientific basis whatsoever. It’s language which misleads people, especially children, into thinking that male and female are arbitrary designations and can change. That is simply not true. Dr McNamara claims that social and medical interventions are the only evidence based treatment and that scientific evidence shows it is lifesaving. Without it, she’s warning us, kids will commit suicide. A growing number of countries have effectively banned the care to which she’s referring and thank God there’s been no wave of suicides or other mental health catastrophes. Three years ago Finland placed strict limitations on medical interventions for minors. Sweden did the same thing after 14 year old girl was found to have osteoporosis and spinal fractures from puberty blockers. An investigation concluded, quote: “the risks of anti puberty and hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits.” The UK conducted their review and called the evidence very low. They’ve also placed severe restrictions on the care that Dr McNamara calls “lifesaving”. Norway also analysed the data and has made similar changes in policy. The National Academy of medicine in France warned, quote: “Great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability of this population, and the many undesirable even serious complications the therapies cause. Doctors in New Zealand and Australia have published similar statements. Is Dr McNamara suggesting that all these countries are rejecting evidence based treatment and placing their kids at risk of suicide? Regarding that point of view, Finland’s gender expert, Dr Rita …. Said, quote: “it’s purposeful disinformation spreading which is irresponsible.” All seven countries and Florida, too, of course concluded that kids don’t need their development interrupted. The girls don’t need their period stopped and their voices lowered and the boys don’t need to grow breasts. What they need is psychotherapy. I have other directions to Dr McNamara’s testimony. She insists that her position, only hers, represents standard medical care. What she doesn’t want you to know is that there is no standard. There’s a debate. There is a fierce debate and on the side opposite her stand such prominent figures as Stephen Levine etc etc etc among others. These doctors are giants in the field. They have been treating transgender patients and gathering data and publishing papers about them, and I mean no disrespect here, but since before Dr McNamara was born. The point is that those veteran clinicians and others who have wisdom and experience are ignored because they disagree with the current narrative. They’re against medical interventions for the same reason those seven countries are. There is no evidence of long term benefit, but there is evidence of harm. I’ll end by quoting Jamie Reed the courageous whistleblower from the children’s gender clinic in Saint Louis. I believe that that hospital receives the medical education funding that we’re discussing today. She said the doctors at that clinic said we are building the plane while we are flying it. We are building the plane while we are flying it! That’s how they described the treatment at their gender clinic. Our precious tax dollars should not support such a perilous experiment. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.