Re Z (Disclosure to Social Work England: Findings of Domestic Abuse)

Disclosure of information from private family proceedings to a professional regulator requires the court to conduct the evaluative balancing exercise identified in Re C. There is no presumption for or against disclosure. Relevant factors include the child’s welfare, confidentiality, frankness, the public interest in justice and safety, the gravity and relevance of the conduct, and co-operation between agencies protecting children or vulnerable adults.

Where findings of domestic abuse may call into question a social worker’s fitness to practise, the public interest in disclosure to Social Work England may outweigh the child’s and practitioner’s privacy interests. Disclosure should be limited to what is necessary and protected by redaction and restrictions on onward publication.

The mother appealed against a family-court decision refusing Social Work England a transcript of findings made against the father at a fact-finding hearing in private-law proceedings. The father was a social worker working with vulnerable adults. The findings included physical assault, controlling and abusive behaviour, and conduct affecting the child.

Permission to appeal was granted on grounds that the judge had failed to balance the public interest in disclosure and had wrongly concluded that Social Work England could investigate without the judgment. Social Work England intervened. The central issues were whether the refusal decision was unsafe and, if so, whether disclosure should be ordered on remaking the decision.

1. Appeal allowed. The first-instance judge had applied the Re C factors but failed to explain why the public interest in disclosure and the desirability of co-operation between agencies were irrelevant or outweighed. That omission seriously undermined the required balancing exercise and rendered the decision unsafe.
2. The judge also erred in concluding that Social Work England could conduct its investigation without the fact-finding judgment. It would have been dependent on the father’s account, while further disclosure by the parties risked contempt and loss of control over the child’s confidentiality. The suggestion that the matter might be reviewed only if further information arrived created an almost insuperable threshold.
3. Disclosure under rule 12.73(1)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 is fact-specific. The Re C factors must be weighed without any presumption in favour of disclosure. The interests of vulnerable adults may be treated as falling within the protection afforded by the factors referring to children generally.
4. On remaking the decision, the balance firmly favoured disclosure. The father’s conduct was serious and directly relevant to professional standards. Social Work England had statutory duties to protect the public and procedures safeguarding confidential information and the practitioner’s fair-hearing rights. The possible financial effect on the child did not amount to a sufficiently serious welfare impact to outweigh the public interest.
5. Disclosure was necessary and proportionate despite the interests protected by Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. The fact-finding judgment and schedule were to be redacted to remove identifying information, including the names of the child, her parents, school and witnesses, and disclosure was conditional on no publication on Social Work England’s website.
6. The judge gave practical guidance: consider disclosure where findings may affect a party’s fitness to work with vulnerable people; invite positions and, where opposed, consider intervention by the regulator; preferably determine the issue at an attended hearing; control onward disclosure; and send any refusal judgment promptly to the regulator.

• High Court (Family Division): appeal from the refusal dated 26 August 2022 allowed on both grounds; the disclosure decision was remade and disclosure ordered subject to redaction and publication restrictions.
• First-instance family court: refused Social Work England’s application for the fact-finding judgment.