S v SP and CAFCASS

Information relating to private Children Act proceedings may be disclosed without permission where the recipient is a professional acting in furtherance of child protection. That phrase requires a broad interpretation. It can cover communication by a CAFCASS guardian to a police officer investigating alleged domestic abuse between adults where the investigation raises issues affecting children’s safety and welfare.

Disclosure which goes beyond the general nature of the dispute may still fall within the permitted category. In cases of doubt, professionals should seek the court’s permission as a precaution.

S applied for findings of contempt against SP, a CAFCASS children’s guardian, and CAFCASS. He alleged that SP unlawfully disclosed information about private Children Act proceedings to a police officer investigating allegations made by S against his former wife.

The disclosure concerned the background to the family proceedings, contact, the children’s welfare, S’s mental health and relevant protective orders. S contended that the disclosure breached FPR 12.73. The respondents argued that the officer was acting in furtherance of child protection and that the communication was permitted. The central issue was whether the disclosure fell within the rule’s permitted category.

1. The application was dismissed. The burden of proving contempt rested on S, and the standard was proof beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The court rejected the submission that the information disclosed was merely a general indication of the nature of the dispute. It amounted to information relating to the proceedings for the purposes of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
3. The expression “a professional acting in furtherance of the protection of children” in FPR 12.73 required a broad interpretation. It permitted disclosure by CAFCASS to a police officer during an investigation which included allegations of domestic violence or abuse within a family.
4. The police investigation concerned allegations between adults, but its context included harassment, protective orders, the history between the parties and the possible effect of those matters on the children. The investigation therefore plainly engaged the children’s safety and welfare. The officer was acting in furtherance of child protection within the meaning of FPR 12.73.
5. SP’s disclosure accordingly complied with FPR 12.73(1)(viii). Neither SP nor CAFCASS was in contempt of court.
6. The judgment identified uncertainty about the operation of the rule in such circumstances. The court invited CAFCASS to consider whether further guidance was needed and stated, as precautionary guidance, that professionals should apply to the court for permission where they were in doubt.