G v B

CAFCASS must disclose to the court material relevant to a child’s welfare, but it must comply with applicable safeguarding and data-protection requirements. Police information about third parties, or information unrelated to the child, must not be reproduced or disclosed in its original form. A report may therefore require editing or reconstruction before disclosure. Any restriction should be explained clearly to the court. Describing an unfiled or altered report as failing “quality assurance” may create a misleading impression that information is being withheld improperly.

Proceedings under the Children Act 1989 concerned an application for contact and parental responsibility. A district judge directed CAFCASS to prepare a risk-assessment report for an adjourned First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment. A later report referred to an earlier assessment which had not been filed. The court was told that the earlier assessment did not meet “quality assurance” standards and that only an edited version could be shown.

The matter was listed in the High Court to resolve whether the earlier report should be disclosed and how any substantive changes should be explained. The issue was ultimately resolved by agreement without adjudication.

1. Resolution. The matter was permitted to return to the county court. The parties agreed an order, which the judge was content to make.
2. CAFCASS safeguarding duties. The apparent dispute arose from two misunderstandings. The first assessment was incomplete and had not been filed. The more significant reason it was not relied upon in its original form was that it contained information outside the disclosure permitted by the Disclosure Protocol agreed between CAFCASS and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
3. Police information. CAFCASS received information from the police while carrying out safeguarding checks. It was required to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Information could not be reproduced where it was irrelevant to the child, and police documentation could not be supplied in its original form to parties or their legal representatives. CAFCASS had to extract and use only information considered relevant to the child.
4. Practical guidance. The judge accepted those submissions and the accompanying apology. The judgment emphasised the importance of explaining accurately to the court why a report has not been filed or why it has been edited. The phrase “quality assurance” was misleading in the circumstances because the actual reasons were incompleteness and compliance with the Protocol.