Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

5. Miss A complains about Cafcass. She specifically complains:

• In its Section 7 report dated 28 February 2024, Cafcass disclosed her ADHD diagnosis even though she gave her permission for this information to be shared with the court only and not with the other party to the proceedings.

• In its Section 7 report dated 28 February 2024, Cafcass has referenced her as having mental health issues which she says is entirely incorrect. She says the FCA has used this to discredit her experience of domestic abuse. She says in the report the FCA has provided a professional view on her mental health without obtaining any independent assessment.

• The FCA did not follow Cafcass’ relevant policies and contacted the other party before contacting her. She says the FCA has not taken into consideration her domestic abuse experience with the other party.

• Following her disclosure of her ADHD diagnosis to Cafcass, it failed to implement or adhere to her reasonable adjustment needs.

6. Miss A says that as the other party is now aware of her ADHD diagnosis, he has weaponised this and he and his family are using this against her to embarrass her and this has had an effect on her day to day life. She says she works in the community with vulnerable people and she has had to request not to work in certain areas. She says this because the other party has been telling people she has mental health issues. She says this will have a long term effect on her private and work life as this information cannot be unshared now and has allowed the other party to continue to have a huge impact on her particularly as she ended the relationship due to abuse.

7. Miss A says as the FCA did not follow Cafcass’ domestic abuse pathway, she felt she had already made a judgement about her from speaking with the other party first and this caused her to question her own lived experiences as well as feeling like she was reliving the abuse she fled from.

8. Miss A says that by not following her reasonable adjustment needs she felt like nobody was listening to her concerns and she informed or involved in the process. She says she was not provided with the support she needed.

9. Overall, Mis A says she felt alone, isolated and frightened and says she lost trust in Cafcass, the whole process has had a long term impact on her recovery from domestic abuse. She says she has been caused distress and anxiety.

10. As an outcome to her complaint Miss A is seeking recognition from Cafcass of the effect these matters have had on her. Specifically in respect of the disclosure of her ADHD diagnosis, she is seeking recognition that this can never be undone and will continue to affect her in the future. Miss A is seeking an apology and service improvements to ensure this cannot happen again. She is also seeking a financial remedy.

11. Miss A has been involved in a family court case as her former partner is seeking access to their daughter. Her former partner made an application to court in the summer of 2023. There was an initial hearing in October 2023 where a Section 7 report was ordered by the court.

12. In November 2023 the FCA at the centre of this complaint was appointed Children’s Guardian for Miss A’s daughter. Miss A first raised her concerns about the FCA in early February 2024 which initially Cafcass refused to accept as a complaint that could be considered under its complaints process. However, she raised her concerns again as a formal complaint at the end of February 2024 which Cafcass accepted. Cafcass provided responses to this complaint on 9 and 14 May 2024.

13. Miss A raised further concerns on 2 May 2024. On 18 June 2024 a new Children’s Guardian was appointed for Miss A’s daughter. Cafcass issued its final response in July 2024.

14. On 6 May 2025, at the final hearing, it was ordered that there should be no direct contact between the other party and Miss A’s daughter.

Cafcass’ role

15. Cafcass represent children and young people in the family court. It is an independent organisation but its work is directed by the court. It advises the court about what is safe for children and in their best interests. It also provides information, advice and support to children and their families. It usually provides this to the court in what is known as a Section 7 report.

16. Cafcass’ Reporting to court policy sets out what is expected of Family Court Advisers and Children’s Guardian’s when writing their reports for the court. It says:

‘Distinguishing fact from opinion

1.7 The information obtained by practitioners during their work includes both factual information and opinion. Practitioners may draw on training, professional experience, research and evidence-based tools to analyse this information. When a report is being filed with the court, tools are not to be attached to reports; instead the analysis should be incorporated into the content. Hearsay evidence is information given to the practitioner (or any other person) that has not been personally seen or heard by the practitioner. Hearsay evidence is permitted in family proceedings. A clear distinction should be made in court reports (as in other records) between verified facts, allegations made by the adults, hearsay evidence and the practitioner’s assessment, analysis or opinion. When reporting hearsay, it should be clearly identified as such (as should the source of the evidence), as this will assist the court in determining the weight that should be attached to it.’

Disclosure of ADHD diagnosis and references to mental health

19. Miss A complains that despite only giving her consent for her ADHD diagnosis to be shared with the court, Cafcass disclosed it in its Section 7 report which was then shared with the other party to proceedings. She says she was clear with Cafcass about her reasons for not wishing this information to be given to the other party which related to domestic abuse and stalking and despite this the FCA and her manager said it was necessary to be shared.

20. Miss A also complains that in the section 7 report the FCA references that she has mental health issues, which is incorrect, and the FCA used this to discredit her experience of domestic abuse. She also says the FCA provided her professional view on her mental health without obtaining any independent assessment.

21. In its complaint response issued in July 2024, Cafcass says:

‘I have found that the medical information relating to your diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was incorrectly shared in the section 7 report of 28 February 2024. [named FCA] gave incorrect expectations of your rights in relation to this information processing. The emotional impact of [other party’s] behaviour on you, and the relevance of this to the court proceedings, could have been shared in the section 7 report without disclosing your diagnosis of ADHD. There is no evidence suggesting that your diagnosis presented any risk to [daughter]. I also found that [named FCA] has made, at times, inappropriate comments about your diagnosis of ADHD.

Also, I can see that [named FCA] referred to your ‘overall mental health’ (at paragraph 47 of the Section 7 report of 28 February 2024) when there was no medical or expert assessment or diagnosis to support this. Whilst there was information at the time from safeguarding checks, with [named] Children’s Services reflecting that you were involved with Adult Social Care in respect of a mental health referral, it is my view that [named FCA] should have explored this further in the report and sought further information from the court in this respect, if she had any concerns. I found that [named FCA] provided a professional view on your mental health in the absence of any independent assessment, and I agree that it was not appropriate to include this in the report.

Having considered the report it is not clear to me the reason for this information being necessary to share as part of the assessment, given that it does not impact upon the application before the court. Firstly, I would like to apologise on behalf of Cafcass for this information being shared as I agree there were no significant concerns about [daughter] in your care which would warrant this information being shared in the section 7 report and subsequently shared with [other party]. I find that if [named FCA] did feel it necessary to share this information in the report that an option to be explored was for the report to have been shared with the court only. I understand that this was considered by [named FCA] with Assistant Service Manager [named] on the 28 February prior to the report being filed. Reflections on this discussion and decision making have been addressed with [named Assistant Service Manager]…

I am concerned that [named FCA] provided a professional view on your mental health in the absence of any independent assessment, and without exploring the information contained in safeguarding checks from [named Children’s Services as part of the assessment. I agree that it was not appropriate to include this into the report. I am sorry this took place.’

22. It is clear from the evidence available to us that the information contained within the section 7 report concerning Miss A’s ADHD diagnosis and mental health was not in line with Cafcass’ Reporting to Court policy. This is because the FCA has not fully considered whether the information is necessary or even relevant to the court proceedings and provided her professional view on her mental health without obtaining any independent assessments. It is of further concern that Miss A’s consent for her ADHD diagnosis to be shared only with the court was dismissed even after discussions were held between the FCA and an Assistant Service Manager.

23. Cafcass has accepted that it should not have disclosed Miss A’s ADHD diagnosis or made reference to her mental health, as such the fact that were failings here is not in dispute. We will therefore focus on the impact to Miss A’s and what Cafcass has done to put this right.

24. Miss A told us that since the other party became aware of her ADHD diagnosis he and his family are using this against her to embarrass her which affects her day-to-day life. She says her job is to work in the community with vulnerable people and because the other party has been telling people that she has mental health issues, this has affected her work as she has had to request not to work in certain areas.

25. Miss A told us of the distress this caused her and made her lose trust in Cafcass as it did not listen to her. She told us that this information can never be unshared and this in itself has caused her to feel frightened because this will have a long-term impact on both her work and private life. She says that by sharing this information with the other party has allowed them to continue having a huge impact on her particularly as she ended the relationship due to the domestic abuse she suffered which has caused her to feel anxious.

26. Cafcass has told us of the learning it has taken from Miss A’s complaint. In its complaint response it said that learning and reflections have taken place with the FCA and their Service Manager. It also told us that wider national learning for Cafcass was identified in relation to the disclosure of medical information. It says it identified that more work needed to be done around its use of language and how it discusses with families what information it needs to know and what it needs to share with the court. It also told us that the learning from Miss A’s complaint would be incorporated into updates to its Domestic Abuse pathway. It also said that a learning event was held for all FCA’s to help them consider the impact on families and sharing information.

27. We are pleased to see that Cafcass has taken Miss A’s complaint seriously and has implemented learning and changes to ensure this situation does not happen again. While this will likely provide reassurance to Miss A, we do not consider that this puts things right for her. This is because while it has apologised for the unnecessary sharing of her ADHD diagnosis and for the FCA providing their professional view on her mental health, it has not acknowledged how this has affected Miss A, that this information cannot be unshared or how it could affect her for some time. While we cannot hold Cafcass responsible for the actions of a third party, it is responsible for ensuring it is only sharing relevant information. It is for these reasons that it is our decision to uphold this complaint and we have made recommendations for Cafcass to put this right for Miss A.

Cafcass policies

28. Miss A complains the FCA did not follow Cafcass’ relevant policies. Here she refers to its domestic abuse pathway and also its practice aid for coercive control. She says the FCA contacted the other party first which is against the domestic abuse pathway. She says the FCA has not taken into consideration the domestic abuse she experienced from the other party.

29. In its complaint response issued in July 2024, Cafcass says:

‘I found in my investigation that the focus of the section 7 assessment was on your neurodiversity, which was presented as a concern about your mental health, and the concerns you had shared about domestic abuse were not given appropriate consideration. We should have gone further in understanding the impact of domestic abuse on you and [daughter]…

Whilst I can see that [named FCA] did consider your concerns in relation to domestic abuse as part of the assessment at paragraphs 40 to 47 and referencing the Cafcass domestic abuse pathway guidance I do not believe that there was appropriate consideration given to the understanding of the impact of domestic abuse on you. It is also concerning to see that the focus was on your mental health whereby domestic abuse became less of a focus, resulting in your concerns of domestic abuse becoming minimised.’

30. It is clear from the evidence we have seen that Cafcass’ Domestic Abuse pathway was not followed by the FCA. Cafcass has acknowledged this already and so the fact that failings exist here is not in question. We will therefore focus our consideration on the impact to Miss A’s and what Cafcass has done to put this right.

31. Miss A told us as the FCA did not follow the Domestic Abuse pathway and contacted the other party before her, she felt like the FCA had already made a judgement about her and this caused her to question her own lived experiences. She says she also felt like she was reliving the abuse she suffered as she felt she was repeatedly having to prove what happened, this also caused her sleepless nights. She was further concerned as she provided evidence of her experiences and this was disregarded. It is reasonable that Miss A’s feelings here arose from the actions of the FCA and we do not doubt that this added to her distress particularly due to her past experiences. We do recognise that she may have been distressed about these conversations even if the FCA had spoken to her first as should have happened. However, it is likely she would have felt like she was being treated fairly and possibly would have doubted herself less if the process had been properly followed.

32. Cafcass told us that its complaint investigation found that it contacted the other party before Miss A’s as they were the applicant in the family court proceedings. Cafcass told us that its FCAs need to ensure their assessment concerning domestic abuse is analysed using reasoned and professional judgement, in line with its Domestic Abuse Practice policy and the assessments need to be as clear as possible regarding the identified risk. It says its investigation found learning for the FCA where domestic abuse victims should, where possible, be contacted first in line with its Domestic Abuse policy. It also found the section 7 report’s focus was on Miss A’s neurodiversity, which was presented as a concern about mental health, rather than understanding the impact of domestic abuse for Miss A’s and her daughter. Cafcass says the identified learning has been taken forward with the FCA and actions have been implemented which has been successful and a significant amount of progress documented.

33. We can see that Cafcass have taken Miss A’s concerns seriously and has ensured the FCA has taken learning from this complaint. We are pleased to hear that progress has been made in this regard.

34. While we are satisfied that Cafcass has taken steps to improve its service and it has apologised to Miss A for its FCA failing to follow its Domestic Abuse policy, it has not considered or recognised the impact to Miss A’s. Therefore, it is our view that it has not done enough to put this right for her and we have made recommendations to put this right.

Reasonable adjustments

35. Miss A complains that following her disclosure of her ADHD diagnosis to Cafcass, she requested reasonable adjustments such as (but not limited to) giving her time to respond, putting things in writing, for example following telephone calls, and keeping her updated on what has and is happening with the case. Miss A says that Cafcass failed to implement and adhere to her reasonable adjustment needs.

36. In its complaint response issued in July 2024, Cafcass says:

‘When you shared your diagnosis of ADHD [named FCA] needed to explore your experience of ADHD further to understand how best to work with you. In terms of understanding and offering you appropriate reasonable adjustments, while reasonable adjustments were discussed with you and your Advanced Nurse Practitioner ADHD [named], they were not applied consistently when [named FCA] engaged with you. For example, you asked us to communicate with you in writing and, while there is a record of your receiving some communication in writing, this was not consistently offered to you. Further, information was not shared with you in time to allow for sufficient review and reflection, such as when the stepped plan was shared with you the day before the meeting with [named FCA]. It would have been beneficial that a plan of reasonable adjustments was written and specific about timescales…

Once you had shared your diagnosis of ADHD and a Teams meeting took place with [named ADHD nurse] on 28 February 2024, where she shared how best to communicate with you, I can see an attempt was made at enforcing reasonable adjustments by putting information in writing and taking time to share the recommendations of the report with you. However, I can see that there was no consistency with the reasonable adjustments put in place for you and I am sorry this was the case and you felt at a significant disadvantage.’

37. Cafcass told us that it does not have a specific reasonable adjustment policy in place, but its work is guided by its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (EDI) which says:

‘Inclusion is providing a space where everyone has equal access to opportunities and resources and where everyone feels valued and accepted. Everyone should be able to contribute and have a voice. This means making reasonable adjustments to facilitate participation.

and

At Cafcass we are not only committed to meeting our statutory responsibilities, but we will strive to exceed them by actively removing barriers and supporting children, families and our colleagues to reach their full potential. This will ensure we meet our aim of becoming a beacon of best practice in relation to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.’

38. Miss A told us that as her reasonable adjustments were not followed it made her feel like nobody was listening to her concerns and did not feel involved in the process. She also says she was not provided with the support she needed to navigate the family court process. She says altogether this made her feel dismissed and alone.

39. As part of its learning from Miss A’s complaint, Cafcass told us that while it found reasonable adjustments were discussed with Miss A’s and her ADHD nurse, they were not applied consistently. It said that the reasonable adjustments were in place and the new FCA was ensuring they adhered to them. More recently it told us that it had identified learning from another complaint in relation to how it identifies, records and implements reasonable adjustments. It says it held a national learning panel in February 2026 where proposals for how best to support colleagues in considering and applying reasonable adjustments are being taken forward.

40. By not recording and consistently adhering to Miss A’s reasonable adjustments Cafcass has not acted in line with its own EDI strategy. As such it is understandable that Miss A’s felt not listened to or involved in the process and this made her feel dismissed and alone. We recognise that the child contact process is already a difficult process to navigate, but we can see how following the reasonable adjustments would have made the process easier for Miss A’s. We are pleased to hear that Cafcass is now taking steps to implement a reasonable adjustment procedure.

41. Although Cafcass has apologised that it did not consistently adhere to Miss A’s reasonable adjustment needs, we do not think its response goes far enough in recognising the impact to her or putting this right for her and we have made recommendations accordingly.

Impact summary

42. The family court process is a stressful process to navigate. Miss A’s experience has been made worse by the failings identified in this report. This has had a significant impact on Miss A and has caused her distress and anxiety. While Cafcass are not responsible for the actions of a third party it is clear the unnecessary sharing of Miss A’s ADHD diagnosis has caused her to feel a significant impact to her personal and work life. Though some of the impact to Miss A has told about would likely have happened even without the failings having occurred, the situation as a whole was made worse by Cafcass not following its own processes or adhering to Miss A’s reasonable adjustment needs.

1. We have found failings in Cafcass disclosing Miss A’s ADHD diagnosis without her permission and incorrectly making reference to her having mental health issues. While it acknowledged that it should not have done this, it has not done enough to recognise or remedy the impact to Miss A.

2. We have found failings in relation to Cafcass following its own Domestic Abuse pathway as it did not contact Miss A’s first and focussed on her ADHD diagnosis rather than her experience of domestic abuse. Though it acknowledged that it should not have done this, it has not done enough to recognise or remedy the impact to Miss A.

3. We have found failings in how Cafcass adhered to Miss A’s reasonable adjustment needs as it did not consistently adhere to them. Though it has apologised to Miss A’s we do not consider it has gone far enough to recognise the impact to Miss A.

4. Therefore we uphold this complaint and have made recommendations to put right the impact of Cafcass’ failings for Miss A.