Tell us what's happening. We'll show you where your case falls outside CAFCASS's own rules.
Describe your situation and we'll point out, free, where it appears to breach the standards CAFCASS officers are required to follow. No jargon. No cost. Just clarity, from the first question to after the final hearing.
No spam, nothing to sell. We answer you first, then show you where the report doesn't add up.
Stories get dismissed. Data does not.
76%
of court orders follow the CAFCASS recommendation
1 in 90
complaints about CAFCASS fully upheld
0
sanctions in five years for getting a report wrong
Not recorded
whether a wrong report is ever corrected for the court
Figures from CAFCASS's own FOI responses, refs CAF 26-45850 and CAF 26-46376, 2026.See the full evidence →
We're with you the whole way
Wherever you are in this, there's a next step.
Most parents find us in the middle of the storm. It doesn't matter which stage you're at. The help starts from exactly where you're standing.
One
Things are okay
Know your rights early, before anything escalates.
Two
Contact restricted
A safeguarding letter has limited your time. Understand what it really means.
Three
Proceedings begin
Know what's coming and how to prepare for it.
Core · Four
The Section 7 report
We check it against CAFCASS's own framework and show every failure, in plain English.
Five
Hearing prep
Walk in composed, with your points tied to the standards they breach.
Six
After the decision
Whatever the outcome. What it found, what's still open, what to do next.
How it works
Three steps. No cost. No catch.
You don't upload a document into a void. You have a conversation, and it answers you.
1
Tell us what's happening
In your own words. We answer your worry first, before anything else.
2
We check it against the rules
JUNO measures your report against the standards CAFCASS officers must follow.
3
You get it in plain English
Every point where the report appears to fall short, and what you can do next.
Meet JUNO
The engine that reads your report.
JUNO is the intelligence behind The King Project. It knows every standard a CAFCASS officer is required to follow, checks your report against them, and explains what it finds in plain English. Here's how a first conversation feels.
The King Project
I got a safeguarding letter and now I only see my daughter two hours a week. I don't understand why.
That's frightening, and you're not alone in it. A safeguarding letter is an early step, not the final word, and it can be challenged. Can I ask: has a Section 7 report been ordered yet?
Yes, last week.
Good, that's exactly what we can help with. When you share it, I'll show you where it appears to fall outside CAFCASS's own standards, point by point.
Free legal help most parents never claim
Were you controlled? Manipulated? Made to feel like nothing?
That's abuse. It doesn't have to be a raised hand. Being controlled, belittled, cut off from your kids, your money or your friends, made to feel worthless or like everything was your fault. The law recognises all of it as domestic abuse, and it can entitle you to free legal aid. Most victims never claim it. Men almost never do, because nobody ever told them it counted. Whoever you are, it counts, and we'll help you prove it.
1
We help you see it
Name what's happened to you against what the law recognises as abuse, including coercive and emotional control.
2
We point you to assessment
Connect you to the right route to have it formally assessed, the step that can unlock funding.
3
You apply for legal aid
With that in hand, we show you how to apply for the free legal help you may be entitled to.
Everything on this site is backed by their own letters.
We asked CAFCASS the questions they don't publish answers to. The replies, in writing, are laid out side by side in the Evidence Room.
That is the independent Ombudsman parents are told to escalate to: one complaint about CAFCASS fully upheld, out of 1,888 received since 2020. And every figure on this page arrived the same way, from the public bodies themselves, in writing, under the Freedom of Information Act. CAFCASS. Ofsted. The Ombudsman. The National Audit Office. The Ministry of Justice. The Children's Commissioner. Nothing here is our opinion. It's their own letters, laid side by side.
Ten official written replies, June to August 2026 · full register at the foot of this page
What they told us, in their own words
Six figures. Six admissions. Every one from a dated, referenced letter.
Exhibit A
1–3%
Complaints fully upheld, every year, five years running.
"We have therefore provided data on the number of complaints recorded in each of the years requested."
CAF 26‑45850 · 18 Jun 2026
Exhibit B
91
Complaints fully upheld across five years, out of roughly 9,800 received.
Sum of CAFCASS's own year-by-year "fully upheld" figures, 2021–2026.
CAF 26‑45850 · 18 Jun 2026
Exhibit C
0
Formal sanctions issued as a result of those 91 upheld complaints.
"The number of those disciplinary processes that ended in a formal sanction... Nil."
CAF 26‑46376 · 14 Jul 2026
Exhibit D
0
Staff dismissed following an upheld complaint, in five years.
"The number of staff dismissed following an upheld complaint... Nil."
CAF 26‑46376 · 14 Jul 2026
Exhibit E
Not held
Whether a wrongly written report was ever corrected for the court.
"We are unable to provide the requested information as it is not recorded by Cafcass."
CAF 26‑46376 · 14 Jul 2026
Exhibit G
1 in 1,888
Complaints about CAFCASS upheld by the independent Ombudsman since 2020.
One upheld, out of 1,888 complaints received by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
PHSO · FOI reply · 2026
Exhibit H
None
Framework Ofsted holds for assessing the independence of evidence before the family court.
Ofsted confirmed it holds no framework for assessing the independence of family court evidence.
Ofsted · FOI reply · 2026
Exhibit F
<5
The threshold so low across five years that CAFCASS had to merge the figures to avoid identifying individual staff.
"Because of the low number of responses which meet your criteria... we have aggregated the information."
CAF 26‑46376 · 14 Jul 2026
The same job, two different professions
A registered nurse and a CAFCASS officer both hold a public trust. Only one of them faces a consequence for breaking it.
CAFCASS
Front-line staff~2,258
Upheld complaints, 5 yrs91
Reached a conduct process4
Formal sanctions0
Dismissals0
Nursing & Midwifery Council
On the register~850,000
Concerns raised, 1 yr6,539
Reached a panel, 1 yr647
Ended in a sanction526 (81%)
Struck off, 1 yr alone289
We asked every body around them
Oversight, audit and inspection bodies, one written question at a time. Read together, their answers describe the same gap, each in its own words.
Exhibit I
Never asked
Whether any body has ever proposed that Ofsted assess the independence or quality of family court evidence.
Ofsted has never received such a proposal from CAFCASS, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education, or any other body.
Ofsted follow-up · CAS-515709-MHH7WP · 26 August 2026
Exhibit J
One route
Inspection routes into CAFCASS across the entire system.
HM Inspectorate of Probation has no role in CAFCASS oversight. Inspection is Ofsted's responsibility alone. The one route that exists holds no framework for this, and was never asked to build one.
Ministry of Justice · 260728005 · 26 August 2026
Exhibit K
Never
Formal recommendations the Children's Commissioner has made about CAFCASS practice or accountability.
No formal recommendation, submission or representation concerning CAFCASS practice or accountability, in the Office's history.
Children's Commissioner for England · FOI2621 · 25 August 2026
Exhibit L
72,000+
Applications the Legal Aid Agency would have to review by hand to say how many parents face a represented opponent alone.
Nothing at all is recorded about the opposing, privately funded party in private law children cases. Nobody holds a national picture of represented against unrepresented parents.
MoJ / Legal Aid Agency · 260728018 · 24 August 2026
Exhibit M
43%
Of CAFCASS's 1,659 formal complaints in 2025/26 themed report content, report writing or factual error.
A further 1,314 concerns the same year never entered the formal complaints process at all, handled instead by local teams, uncounted.
CAFCASS · CAF 26-46784 · 24 August 2026
Exhibit N
4,000+
Children in family court cases that have been running for more than 100 weeks.
47,662 cases outstanding at December 2024. CAFCASS private law involvement is set to roughly triple, with around 200 advisers not yet in post.
National Audit Office · FOI-1945 · and NAO report, May 2025
The pattern across every reply
CAFCASS cannot confirm a single wrong report has ever been corrected, and applied zero formal sanctions from 91 upheld complaints in five years.
The Ombudsman has fully upheld one complaint out of 1,888 since 2020.
Ofsted, the only inspector CAFCASS has, holds no framework for assessing the independence of family court evidence, and has never been asked by anyone to build one.
The Ministry of Justice confirms no other inspection route exists.
The Children's Commissioner has never made a formal representation about CAFCASS practice or accountability.
The Legal Aid Agency does not track, in any form, how many parents face a represented opponent while unrepresented themselves.
What our own measuring is finding
JUNO checks every report against CAFCASS's own published standards. These are the patterns in the reports we have measured so far.
Finding 01
85%
Of every failure found, 85% pointed against the same parent. The one the report recommended against.
Failures that fall one way are not sloppiness. Sloppiness falls both ways.
JUNO cross-case analysis · reports measured to date
Finding 02
46%
Nearly half of all failures scored Critical, the most serious grade on the scale.
Critical means the failure is capable of changing the outcome of the case.
JUNO cross-case analysis · reports measured to date
Finding 03
100%
Every report so far dropped a parent's protective factors between the body of the report and the recommendation.
The good things about a parent are recorded, then quietly vanish before the conclusion.
JUNO cross-case analysis · reports measured to date
Finding 04
100%
Every report so far tested one parent's claims while taking the other parent's on trust.
One family, two evidential standards, inside a single document.
JUNO cross-case analysis · reports measured to date
Finding 05
3 in 4
Reports that stated untested allegations as established fact.
An allegation written down as fact reads as fact to a court that never sees the method.
JUNO cross-case analysis · reports measured to date
Finding 06
3 in 4
Reports that left questions the court had specifically directed to be answered, unanswered.
The court asked. The report did not answer. The court relied on it anyway.
JUNO cross-case analysis · reports measured to date
The evidence room is still growing
Every request below is real, dated, and sent under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This tracker updates as replies land.
13
Requests sent
9
Answered in full
4
Awaiting reply
9
Independent bodies asked
CAFCASS — complaints received & upheld rateAnswered
CAFCASS — consequences for staffAnswered
CAFCASS — the public's own questionsAnswered
CAFCASS — payouts & performance measuresDrafted
Ministry of Justice — court outcomesSent
MoJ / Legal Aid Agency — representation gapAnswered
Social Work England — officer referralsSent
Ofsted — inspection findingsAnswered
Children's Commissioner for EnglandAnswered
Information Commissioner's OfficeSent
Parliamentary & Health Service OmbudsmanAnswered
National Audit OfficeAnswered
HM Inspectorate of ProbationAnswered
Family Justice CouncilSent
Been let down by a report?
The data is one side of this. Your case is the other. Tell us what happened, free, and we'll show you where it appears to fall outside CAFCASS's own standards.
Before pointing our method at the family courts, we proved it in public, on a failure everyone could see. When Thanet District Council stopped collecting bins and stopped answering residents, we used the law that already existed, built the tool that made it usable, and put it in everyone's hands.
134+
legal notices served on the council by residents, and climbing
4 hours
from the first notice being served to the street being cleared
300,000+
views on our own channels alone, broadcast audiences on top
3
newsrooms covering the story
ITV Meridian filming in Ramsgate, July 2026Residents' notices, hand delivered after the council's inbox stopped accepting them
How it happened
April to July
A district ignored
Collections changed for 27,000 households. Almost 4,000 calls about missed collections in three months. Apologies, and nothing else.
24 July
One notice
Our founder served the council a legal notice under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A crew cleared the street within four hours. The council's own lawyers later confirmed a formal inspection under the statutory Code of Practice, regrading, and supervisor monitoring.
5 August
An open letter
A published letter to the Leader of the council asked for one thing: a district-wide recovery plan, with dates and named accountability. No plan was published. No reply ever came.
14 August
The tool
We built and launched a free self-serve tool. Any resident could generate their own personalised legal notice in about two minutes and have it served on the council for them. No solicitor, no cost.
20 August
Hand delivery
When the council's inbox began bouncing the notices, the first thirty-five were printed and delivered by hand, over the counter, with proof of delivery. Isle of Thanet News reported it two days later.
Late August
134 and climbing
Residents across Ramsgate, Margate, Cliftonville, Broadstairs, Westgate, Birchington and Minster have now served their own notices. The next batch is prepared. Nobody wants court. Everybody wants the service fixed.
The coverage
ITV Meridian
Filmed the campaign on the street, July 2026
KMTV
Kent's TV channel, interview and report, July 2026
Isle of Thanet News
Two reports, 22 and 24 August 2026
The claim, stated carefully
We believe this is the first organised, self-serve mass legal action of its kind against a UK council.
We can find no record of anything comparable: an automated, free tool letting ordinary residents generate and serve their own statutory notices, at scale, on one authority. For context, the best-known organised resident group action against a UK council, the Corby litigation, involved eighteen families. If anyone knows of anything closer, we would genuinely like to hear about it.
Why this page exists
This campaign was the public test of our method: measure an institution against its own published rules, give ordinary people a usable tool, and let the evidence do the talking. In one month it produced a formal institutional response, national and regional press, and a district acting together.
That is the capability now aimed at CAFCASS and the family courts, where the failure is hidden instead of visible. The evidence we have gathered so far is on the Evidence Room page. For partnership, funding or press enquiries: info@thekingproject.co.uk
How we handle what you send us
Policies & data protection
Our privacy promise
Everything you send us is confidential. Your documents are used for one purpose only: analysing the report in your case against the standards its author was bound by. The analysis goes to you, and to your legal adviser if you choose, and nowhere else. It is never filed with the court, never published, and never shared with anyone outside that process.
We are ICO registered (ZC188843). Our analysis system runs in an isolated environment, is never used to train any AI model, and every finding is checked by a person before it reaches you. Your documents are not kept longer than the work requires, and you can ask us at any time what we hold and to have it deleted.
The legal basis for sending us your documents
Under rule 12.75(1)(a) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, a party to children proceedings may share information about those proceedings with another person where necessary to obtain, by confidential discussion, support, advice or assistance in the conduct of the proceedings. That is the basis on which you send us your documents, and our use of them stays within that purpose, consistent with Practice Direction 12G: analysis delivered to you and your legal adviser only.
Under UK GDPR, we process your material on the basis of your consent, given at intake before you send anything, including your explicit consent for the sensitive categories of information these documents contain.
What happens to your documents, step by step
You send your documents by email to info@thekingproject.co.uk with your case background. This privacy notice is provided before or at the point of sending.
Your documents are analysed in an isolated environment. No other cases, correspondence or outside material enters it. The engine reads your documents cold.
Every output is reviewed by a named person before anything is delivered. No finding leaves us unchecked.
Your Framework Analysis goes to you and, if you choose, your legal adviser. Professionals are referred to by role, not name.
Your analysis is not filed with the court, not published, and not shared with any third party. Your documents are deleted from our storage once the work is complete.
The national dataset
We keep aggregate, non-identifying pattern data only: counts of finding types and the direction they fall. No names, no case numbers, no locations, no dates and no identifying details of any kind enter that dataset. It exists so that, for the first time, there is a national picture of how often these reports depart from their own rules.
Systems and safeguards
Document analysis runs on a commercial AI platform under terms which mean your content is never used to train any model, inputs and outputs are automatically deleted after seven days, and a formal data processing agreement applies. The provider holds SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certifications. Our email runs on our own domain with access limited to named individuals.
Your rights
You can ask at any time what we hold about you, ask for it to be corrected, or ask for it to be deleted, by emailing info@thekingproject.co.uk. Deletion requests are honoured except where a minimal record must be kept for legal or accountability reasons. If you are unhappy with how we have handled your information, tell us first, and you can also complain to the Information Commissioner's Office at ico.org.uk.
What we are, and what we are not
The King Project is a not-for-profit organisation working toward charity status. We are not solicitors and we do not give legal advice. What you receive is an analysis measuring the report in your case against published standards, for you and your legal adviser to use as you see fit.
Data Protection Impact Assessment adopted 27 August 2026 · next review 27 February 2027 · ICO registration ZC188843, registered 3 July 2026
