Data Breach
10. Mr R complains that a Safeguarding Letter (dated 5 February 2025) which contained information relating to a pending investigation was wrongly shared with both his ex-partner and the court. It is his opinion that it was illegal for Cafcass to chare this information, and that it was a significant data breach that went against his human rights.
11. In its complaint response letter of 7 March 2024, Cafcass referred to a safeguarding call that took place between Mr R and the Family Court Adviser (FCA) on 30 January 2024.
12. Cafcass says that during this call, the FCA advised Mr R that both he and his ex-partner would receive a copy of the Safeguarding Letter, and that the FCA does not recall Mr R raising any objection to this at the time. It is the FCA’s professional view that the information from the police (an alleged offence of rape by an ex-partner) was relevant and that the Cout would benefit from disclosure of this.
13. Cafcass explained that as it was the FCA’s professional opinion and they were satisfied that Mr R was aware the letter would be shared with the Court and his ex-partner, sharing this information does not constitute a breach of information. Cafcass maintains that the actions of the FCA were neither illegal nor against Mr R’s human rights.
14. Cafcass explained that ‘Work to First Hearing’ stage, its remit is limited to initial risk screening. This is the stage where Cafcass conducts initial screening with the police and the local authority to discover if the parties are known to the relevant agencies. Cafcass also carries out safeguarding telephone interviews with the parties involved. Cafcass notes that these responsibilities are set out in the guidance ‘Practice Direction 12B – Child Arrangements Programme’, and that the FCA was acting within these guidelines.
15. A further complaint response was provided on 29 May 2024, but only to confirmed that the previous advice given was correct, and there was nothing further for the Complaint and Correspondence Team to consider.
16. Mr R’s complaint here is that Cafcass committed an act which breached his rights under The General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Mr R says Cafcass did this by wrongly sharing his personal data with multiple parties that should not have had access to the information
17. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, the law says we look at whether there is an organisation that is better placed to deal with the concerns. Some complaints can be looked at by us, and also by other organisations. We have considered whether another organisation is better suited to giving an answer to the complaint and whether it can provide the outcome Mr R seeks.
18. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an executive non-departmental public body, created by the government to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals. It specialises in complaints of this nature and would be much better placed to consider whether Cafcass did anything wrong on this point.
19. With that in mind, we would end consideration of this point here and advise Mr R to contact the ICO.
Safeguarding Letter
20. Mr R complains that the Safeguarding Letter was biased against him and did not include all the concerns that he had raised to the Family Court Adviser.
21. Cafcass address this in the complaint response on 7 March 2024. It accepted that the Safeguarding Letter does focus on the concerns relating to Mr R’s daughter and gives clear safeguarding advice to the Court.
22. It noted that as part of Mr R’s complaint, he has not provided the specific information he claims was shared with the FCA that she failed to include in report. Cafcass explained that due to this, it is unable to investigate the matter further.
23. Cafcass explained that Mr R would have the opportunity to share any additional concerns he has with the Court as part of the proceedings. Cafcass said it has not identified any concerns with the FCA’s professional practice or conduct in their work on this case.
24. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen.
25. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
26. To put this complaint, and our decision, into context, it may help to explain more about Cafcass’ role in court proceedings. Cafcass do not make decisions in Family Court cases. Instead, its role is to help the Court make the decisions. Cafcass usually does this by preparing and submitting documents for the Court’s consideration, with one such document including Safeguarding Letters. The Court will usually direct Cafcass to complete these letters and has expectations of what it should include.
27. Cafcass’ role in creating the letter is to have an FCA speaking to organisations such as schools, police and local authorities, to find out if the parties involved in the case are known to the organisations. If they are, it will ask them for information they consider relevant. The FCA will then decide, based upon their professional judgment, whether this information should be included in the letter to the Court.
28. If any involved party disputes the information or has any objections to the content or its publication, this is a matter they should raise with the Court. It is for the Judge to decide whether the information is relevant or potential incorrect or biased.
29. Our role at PHSO is to investigate complaints about the administrative and complaints processes, and we cannot consider matters that it would be for a judge to decide upon. With this in mind, we cannot consider this point any further.
Section 7 Report
30. Mr R complains that the Section 7 Report ignored his evidence and included false allegations, providing information to the court that should not exist
31. As with the previous point, this complaint relates to a document created by the FCA for the court. A Section 7 (S7) report is a Cafcass assessment report aimed at evaluating the safety and well-being of a child withing their family or living environment and to promote the welfare of the child.
32. The Court will usually direct Cafcass to complete the report and has expectations of what it should include.
33. Cafcass’ role in creating the report is largely to offer a view, based on its professional judgement, on what it feels to be in the best interests of the child/children. Given the nature of Cafcass’ work, that opinion will often appear to favour one party’s view over another. That is not evidence of bias. Nor is it evidence of maladministration.
34. Cafcass usually expresses its view in the form of a report which includes, but is not limited to, any enquiries it has made or any information it has gathered. It is not for us to determine what Cafcass enquiries it should make or what information it should include in, or omit from, its reports. These are matters for Cafcass’s discretion.
35. Cafcass’ view can be examined, and, where necessary, challenged during the court process. The same is true for any concerns which arise over the information Cafcass has, or has not, chosen to include in its report. It will be for the court to decide what weight, if any, to place on that challenge. Further, if the court decides that Cafcass has provided insufficient information for it to make a judgement it can ask Cafcass to carry out additional work on the case. Again, this is not evidence of maladministration.
36. Mr R explained that to Cafcass ignored his evidence and presented false evidence in its report. This is a serious matter and something a court has power to take a view on. f someone believes that Cafcass has wilfully and deliberately misled a court by providing false information, they may wish to seek independent legal advice on how best to raise this concern with the court. This is not something PHSO can help with. However, if the court does take a view that Cafcass has acted unlawfully, we may be able to consider the matter against Cafcass’s administrative responsibilities.
37. There is a clear and established process for challenging a Cafcass view. We do not see it us our role to interfere with that process.
38. Essentially, we look at administrative failings (when not under the judge’s remit) and complaint handling. Broadly, this means the practical steps an organisation takes to carry out its duties, such as handling correspondence, processing complaints, maintaining records, meeting deadlines, and following internal procedures. These are separate from professional judgments (like an Cafcass Officer or Social Worker’s assessment) or decisions made under the authority of a judge, which we cannot look at.
39. With all this considered, we cannot proceed with an investigation of this point.
Summary
40. Having reviewed all the relevant evidence, we have taken the decision that there is nothing to indicate a need to proceed to the second and final stage of our complaints process.
41. We were sorry to learn of the circumstances which led to Mr R’s approach to our office. We realise that the outcome of his approach is unlikely to be the one he was hoping for. We also recognise his likely disappointment at this and hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision.