I've done your job
I worked as a Children's Guardian for CAFCASS before going independent. I know what it's like to be scrutinising an ISW's report at ten o'clock the night before a hearing, trying to work out whether their analysis holds up and whether their recommendations align with the child's interests. That experience shapes how I write my reports now. I write them knowing that someone in your position will be reading them critically, and I want my reasoning to be clear enough that you can follow every step from evidence to conclusion.
How I approach the Guardian's role in proceedings
The Guardian represents the child's interests. The ISW provides an independent expert assessment. These roles are complementary, not competing. I understand that you need to form your own view, and that my report is one piece of evidence among many that you'll weigh. I won't expect you to simply adopt my recommendations. I will expect you to engage with my analysis, and I'll make sure it's written in a way that makes that straightforward.
Communication during the assessment
I'm happy to speak with you during the assessment if that would be helpful. Some Guardians prefer to wait for the report. Others want to know how things are progressing, particularly if there are safeguarding concerns or if the assessment is raising issues that weren't anticipated. I'll follow your lead on the level of communication you want, but I'll always contact you immediately if something arises that affects the child's safety or the direction of the case.
The report
My reports are structured so that the analysis is traceable. Every recommendation connects back to the evidence and the reasoning that supports it. I include clear references to the welfare checklist, the specific questions in the letter of instruction, and the professional information I've gathered. If you disagree with my conclusions, the report should give you enough to identify exactly where our analyses diverge and why. That makes for a more productive hearing than a vague disagreement about the overall outcome.
When we see things differently
It happens. I've been on both sides of it. When I was a Guardian, I sometimes disagreed with the ISW's recommendations. Now that I'm the ISW, Guardians sometimes disagree with mine. That's healthy. The court needs to hear both positions clearly articulated, with the evidence and reasoning behind each. If I know before the hearing that our positions differ, I'd welcome a conversation about where and why. Not to persuade each other, but to make sure we're both addressing the same evidence and the court gets the benefit of two properly reasoned professional views.
Oral evidence
I've given oral evidence over 100 times. I understand that the Guardian may need to put questions to me, and I welcome that. Robust questioning makes for better evidence. If there are specific aspects of my analysis you want to explore before the hearing, I'm available for discussions through the lead solicitor. I'd rather we both go into the hearing clear about each other's positions than navigate surprises in the witness box.
Recommending an ISW
If you're considering recommending that the court instruct an ISW, I'm happy to have a preliminary conversation about whether an independent assessment would add value. Sometimes a focused discussion about the issues in the case helps clarify whether expert evidence is necessary and, if so, what the scope should be. Getting this right at the outset saves time and produces a more useful piece of work.