Cafcass Report

Posted by: @scottnorthdevon

Had a cafcass phone interview prior to my family court 1st hearing for gaining access to my son. To my astonishment they produced a report that detailed my entire criminal record and sent a copy to my ex-partner (the respondent). Everyone has a past and it has been at least 20yrs since I've even had a caution, yet they've detailed everything and I strongly suspect that my ex will think nothing about sharing this information with others. This is all well and truly 'spent' under the rehabilitation of offenders act, certainly not relevant to my case and quite frankly, nothing whatsoever to do with my ex. I wasn't informed beforehand that this would happen and I was granted no appeal before they decided to share sensitive information about me. 

Understandably I'm fuming and have already logged a complaint with cafcass and the ICO about how my data has been processed. Is this not a flagrant breach of GDPR? I've been in family court before when another ex stopped me from seeing my daughters, they mentioned nothing at all on the cafcass report for that case, other than 'historic convictions but not relevant' (or words to that description). Are these people just allowed to unilaterally decide what they can disclose to the other party? 

The can put anything on there from all the services ie Police and Child Services etc that is relevant to your case. 

There will also be information from these same services about your ex.

You can however question and challenge anything on the report at your hearing.

You could mention that this is 20 years ago and has no relevance to your ex or your child.

@dadlad Thanks. Am I the only one who finds that disgusting though? Quite frankly I am appalled that my ex-partner (of all people) can view what I did when I was a teenager and that cafcass somehow think this is relevant now. My ex will be rubbing her hands together at the recent dirt she's been given about me and will have almost certainly phoned around her friends and told them. There doesn't seem to be any recourse for anyone to even challenge the relevance of this stuff before it's disclosed for my disgruntled ex-partner to circulate at her leisure.

It isn't even black and white. I had an almost identical case with my daughters and it mentioned nothing about my history to the respondent in that case. No doubt she'll be aware now though as she's mates with my recent ex. It seems the whole thing is at the discretion of the social worker dealing with the case at the time and I find this totally unacceptable. This is extremely sensitive personal information that is protected under law. As an employer, the hoops we have to jump through at work to get an employee an enhanced dbs check is unreal. We face prosecution if this information is not kept strictly confidential at all times and the role has to be listed as suitable before it progresses at all. Yet some woman at cafcass with a social care degree is deemed suitably qualified to just pass this information off at her discretion without me even having foresight of it. 

This stuff can ruin people's lives in the wrong hands and my ex has no legal obligation at all to protect this information. Being able to argue against it being relevant in court is one thing, though I should be afforded that opportunity before it gets disclosed to my ex-partner. The potential for damage is huge and makes a complete and utter mockery of the laws that clearly state ex-offenders should not be discriminated against and have the opportunity to move on with their lives once their respective offences are spent under law.

Posted by: @scottnorthdevon

@dadlad Thanks. Am I the only one who finds that disgusting though? Quite frankly I am appalled that my ex-partner (of all people) can view what I did when I was a teenager and that cafcass somehow think this is relevant now. My ex will be rubbing her hands together at the recent dirt she's been given about me and will have almost certainly phoned around her friends and told them. There doesn't seem to be any recourse for anyone to even challenge the relevance of this stuff before it's disclosed for my disgruntled ex-partner to circulate at her leisure.

It isn't even black and white. I had an almost identical case with my daughters and it mentioned nothing about my history to the respondent in that case. No doubt she'll be aware now though as she's mates with my recent ex. It seems the whole thing is at the discretion of the social worker dealing with the case at the time and I find this totally unacceptable. This is extremely sensitive personal information that is protected under law. As an employer, the hoops we have to jump through at work to get an employee an enhanced dbs check is unreal. We face prosecution if this information is not kept strictly confidential at all times and the role has to be listed as suitable before it progresses at all. Yet some woman at cafcass with a social care degree is deemed suitably qualified to just pass this information off at her discretion without me even having foresight of it. 

This stuff can ruin people's lives in the wrong hands and my ex has no legal obligation at all to protect this information. Being able to argue against it being relevant in court is one thing, though I should be afforded that opportunity before it gets disclosed to my ex-partner. The potential for damage is huge and makes a complete and utter mockery of the laws that clearly state ex-offenders should not be discriminated against and have the opportunity to move on with their lives once their respective offences are spent under law.

I’ve had this happen to me but unfortunately when there is a safeguarding report, they have to carry out safeguarding checks on both parties.

The past is the past and as much as it might hurt knowing that your ex now knows about your past all you can do if focus on the now and tell them that isn’t who you are now, show the judge that you are putting your child first and being an amazing parent.

You have to ask yourself, which is more important to you? Hiding your past from your ex or gaining access to your child?

@dadlad I get it, I really do. I just think a system that discloses highly sensitive personal data on a discretionary basis to acrimonious ex-partners that have no intention of retaining confidentiality is a broken system. The court system I agree with, clearly they should have a right to that type of information but they are suitably qualified and accountable enough to manage that data accordingly. But to not even have the chance to review the information that an employee at cafcass has unilaterally decided to share about me with my ex-partner is shambolic.

I'm the applicant in this case and it genuinely feels like I'm the defendant in a criminal trial, it really does. What initially was a useful conversation with the cafcass employee, quickly turned into a mudslinging exercise once I'd had chance to review the report she had sent. She mentioned nothing positive about me at all and highlighted everything bad. I can only think that she had spoken to my ex after speaking with me on the day in question and was taken in by her 'charm'. Disclosing the information she did was purely discretionary and she didn't have to include anything from nearly 30yrs ago.

My ex-partner stopped all contact with my son once she found out that I had a new partner and my only hope was instigating court action to see my child. It seems under the current law that if I choose to try and see my son, I must also suffer from the damaging effects of personal data being leaked to the very person that despises me more than anyone else. It seems the only way to avoid this is to accept that I won't see my son at all. The system is rotten to its core.

@scottnorthdevon this does sound like there has been a breach of DPA/GDPR as only relevant information should be shared. This is also confirmed in the Cafcass Police Checks Handbook (2017). (The Handbook also states no direct copy of police documentation will be provided to anyone, so the information should only have been provided within the S7 report or letter). However, what is considered 'relevant' is quite broad, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and whether a conviction is spent will not apply due to child safeguarding legislation which I'm sure over rides the ROA. The key will be 'relevance'. Offences such as theft from 30 years ago should not be disclosed, however, violent offences (even from 30 years ago), especially if there are any recent allegations (domestic abuse etc) or concerns potentially around child contact raised, potentially could be disclosed. After all even spent convictions come up on enhanced DBS checks for roles such as working with vulnerable adults or in school settings etc.

Take some guidance from the ICO, however, before you go down the complaints route or explore this further, focus on the child contact side of things first and securing the best contact possible. Once this has been achieved then look at the disclosure side of things. After all, it has happened now, you can't undo it, if you focus too much on it and come across aggressive or argumentative then negative views of you may be formed (you're not child focused etc) .You can however, argue in court what it and what isn't relevant to aid child contact matters.

Hope this helps, all the best. 

@Daddyup thanks mate. It's reassuring to know that others are thinking about my situation. Interestingly I found my old cafcass report from my case in 2016 and it clearly states that offences were 'committed as a minor and the remainder before 2002 that are for reason of their historical nature not considered pertinent to this application.'

Yet 6yrs later and cafcass deem my entire criminal history to somehow now be relevant enough to disclose it fully. It's utter insanity and there is zero consistency; how can something be deemed as historic and irrelevant 6yrs ago, but not now? Nothing has changed and it seems they can just go with whatever they feel like at the time and can use their total discretion when deciding if something is relevant or not. I never even got advance warning of the personal data they were revealing about me, or a reason as to why they deemed it relevant. 

I'm refusing to let this lie though. I've asked for a copy of their disclosure protocol and have complained to their data protection department, along with the ICO. Their police check handbook is far too brief and if they don't have an official protocol in place then I don't see how they can justify their data release, especially as their own institution deemed my history as historic and irrelevant back in 2016.

@scottnorthdevon I completely agree with your concerns and exactly the same thing has happened to me, not only has this information been disclosed but it is inaccurate. Did you take any further action regarding this and what was the outcome?

I'll explain what has happened in my case, if you or anyone else can provide any useful information it would be greatly appreciated. 

The report disclosed two historic convictions for ‘Threatening Behaviour’, which is the term commonly used to refer to a Section 4 Public Order offence. The convictions that I have are Section 5 Public Order offences, which would be usually be referred to as Disorderly Conduct/Behaviour. The contrast in severity of these convictions is significant. It’s my understanding these convictions were based on the use of inappropriate language in a public place, I was not aware of any allegations threatening in nature. I understand that threatening behaviour can be an element of these offences but it is not a requirement and this charge is rarely used where there are allegations of violent behaviour. I cannot find a single publication from CPS, Sentencing Council etc where a Section 5 Public Order offence is referred to this way, however in all these publications 'threatening behaviour' seems to be the label for a Section 4 offence. I don't understand how CAFCASS can decide on the wording of these charges

The report also discloses and arrest for Affray, which I believed was nothing more than an honest misunderstanding by the police. I was not interviewed and there was no evidence of this behaviour by myself, hence no further action. I do not know why they disclosed this level of police check without instruction or justification.

What they have disclosed makes me seem like a terrible person however the only the only thing I am guilty of is being a public nuisance many years ago when I was 18, this does not seem fair and I cannot see how it can be used in deciding whether I can have contact with my own daughter