Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

6. Miss X complains that a Cafcass officer included information within a Section 7 report, which led to her address being indirectly identifiable, although an agreement was in place to keep her address confidential.

7. Miss X says that, as a result of the indirect disclosure of her address, she is concerned that her former partner may attend her home. She says this situation has caused significant stress and anxiety, adversely affecting both her own mental health and that of her daughter.

8. By bringing her complaint to us, Miss X is seeking a financial remedy.

9. Miss X was involved in family court proceedings which had input from Cafcass. As part of these proceedings, an agreement was in place that Miss X’s address should not be disclosed to her former partner and that any correspondence should be directed to her via her solicitor. This is because she had previously been the victim of domestic abuse. In addition, it was agreed that contact between Miss X’s former partner and their child should be sent to Miss X’s mother’s address.

10. In December 2024, a Cafcass officer compiled a report for the court about Miss X’s circumstances. In preparation for this, the Cafcass officer spoke to Miss X’s daughter who revealed that she lived next door to her grandmother. The Cafcass officer included this detail in her report which was later made available to all parties.

11. Miss X complained to Cafcass about what had happened and said that, by including this detail, Cafcass had alerted Miss X’s former partner to her address, albeit indirectly. This had led to her being fearful that the previous pattern of abuse may continue.

12. Cafcass responded and accepted the disclosure should not have happened. However, it said it deemed it as being low risk. It said it would withdraw the report and replace it with a redacted one and would raise the issue with the officer in question as part of the wider learning to try to reduce the risk of a similar error happening in future.

Evidence we are considering

13. We have considered Miss X’s complaint form and correspondence between Miss X and Cafcass. We have also considered the information Cafcass has provided to us, as part of our investigation.

14. We use relevant law, policy, guidance and standards to inform our thinking. This allows us to consider what should have happened. In this case we have referred to the following standards:

• Our principles of Good Administration.

What Cafcass told us

15. As part of our investigation, we asked Cafcass questions about these events. Although Cafcass said it had never shared full details of where Miss X lived, it accepted that an indirect disclosure of the address had occurred. At that stage, Cafcass considered that the risk arising from the disclosure was low.

16. Cafcass said that, following the issue of the report, and subsequent redaction, it had carried out further work on the case. This had not revealed any further safeguarding concerns, nor was there evidence that Miss X had come to harm because of the disclosure.

17. Cafcass also told us that it had taken action following the incident, including reviewing what had happened and sharing learning to reduce the likelihood of similar incidents occurring in future.

18. In response to our provisional views, Cafcass accepted our findings. It acknowledged that, an error occurred within the Section 7 report which resulted in information being included that could enable Miss X’'s address to be inferred, despite the requirement to maintain confidentiality.

19. Cafcass accepted that the information should not have been included and that doing so created an avoidable risk. It acknowledged that its previous assessment of the risk did not fully reflect the avoidable risk created by the disclosure or the distress and anxiety experienced by Miss X.

20. Cafcass also recognised that Miss X had explained why she did not want her former partner to know where she was living. It accepted that the indirect disclosure undermined the confidentiality that had been intended to protect her, and that including contextual information which enabled identification, represented a failure in professional judgement.

21. Cafcass acknowledged that, although the actions taken following discovery of the error were prompt, these did not fully mitigate the potential impact of what had happened. It also said it would take learning from the case, including the importance of careful review of reports where confidentiality agreements are in place and greater awareness of how indirect identifiers can compromise confidentiality.

Our view

22. All parties agree that a mistake occurred here and this led to Miss X’s address being wrongly disclosed, albeit indirectly. For that reason, we have looked only at the impact of that error.

23. To do this, we should look at events from Miss X’s point of view. Miss X had made it clear that she did not want her former partner to know where she was living. She had also been clear about the obvious and understandable reasons for this. Cafcass had a clear obligation to honour her wishes in that regard and to keep her address protected. Unfortunately, it failed to do so.

24. We accept Cafcass point that it did not, at any stage, directly reveal Miss X’s address. However, by revealing that she lived next to her mother (an address already known to her former partner), it did the next best thing in that it provided enough information for her address to be inferred.

25. During our work, Cafcass said that, in its view, the fact the former partner knew Miss X’s mother’s address already lessened the impact of the disclosure. It said he ‘could have physically attended that address at any time and indirectly encountered his daughter and/or [Miss X] in the vicinity’.

26. We do not agree with this argument, which we consider to be speculative. Whilst a chance encounter (which may, or may not, have happened) may have revealed Miss X’s whereabouts, the indirect disclosure created a real and avoidable risk that her address could be identified.

27. We have also considered the action Cafcass took in response to Miss X’s complaint. We are pleased to see it acted quickly by making the report unavailable and replacing it with a new, redacted one. However, the evidence we have seen so far shows the report was issued on 24 December 2024 and remained available until 2 January 2025. Whilst we acknowledge that Cafcass’ actions were intended to remove further access through the original distribution route, removing access would not prevent the possibility that during this albeit short period, information had already been accessed or retained.

28. We accept there is no evidence that Miss X came to physical harm because of what happened. We also note that, although Miss X took additional measures to feel safe in her home, such as the installation of a video doorbell, she has not indicated that her fears, albeit understandable, were realised. However, an unrealised fear is not the same as an unfounded one.

29. Given the circumstances, we can understand why Miss X was so worried about what may happen. She had a known reason to fear disclosure, and for wanting her address to remain confidential. The indirect disclosure created distress and anxiety about the confidentiality of her address. It is that worry and distress, which arose directly from Cafcass’ error, which we consider remains unaddressed.

1. The views set out in this report represent our final decision, which is not open to further amendment.

2. Having carefully considered Miss X’s concerns, we have reached the decision to partly uphold this complaint.

3. This is because there are indications of failings in the inclusion of information within a Section 7 report, which resulted in Miss X’s address being indirectly disclosed, even though an agreement was in place to protect the information from disclosure.

4. Although Cafcass had taken steps once the issue was identified, we do not consider these actions fully remedy the injustice arising from the indirect disclosure.

5. We were sorry to learn of the events which led to Miss X’s complaint to us. This has clearly been a deeply distressing experience for her. We hope our report provides reassurance of the thoughtful consideration we have given to her concerns.

30. We make recommendations in line with our Principles for Remedy which are reflected in the UK Central Government Complaint Standards. These say organisations should identify instances where things have gone wrong, take responsibility for these and find ways to put things right for those involved. They should learn from complaints to improve services.

31. Remedying injustice and hardship are a key aspect of our work. Not all maladministration or poor service results in injustice or hardship, but where it does, our underlying principle is to ensure that the organisation restores the complainant to the position they would have been in if the maladministration or poor service had not occurred. In some cases, a financial remedy will be required.

32. To decide on a level of financial remedy, we review similar cases where the person has experienced a similar injustice, along with our severity of injustice scale. This provides guidance on what we see as appropriate remedies in particular circumstances.

33. The scale contains six different levels of injustice that a complaint could fall into, which increase in severity. Each level is then linked to a range of the financial amounts we would usually recommend in those circumstances.

34. A level two injustice will typically arise when what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of distress, anxiety or inconvenience. This could also include instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once or was of short duration. In these cases, we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself.

35. Having considered the evidence we have seen, we are satisfied that Miss X’s case meets level two of our scale.

36. We have reached this view because the indirect disclosure of information within the Section 7 report created concerns about the confidentiality of Miss X's address and caused her distress and anxiety. This was particularly significant because Miss X had a confidentiality agreement in place to protect her address from disclosure.

37. For that reason, we recommend that, within four weeks of our final report; Cafcass:

• Pay Miss X £250 in recognition of the distress and anxiety caused by the handling of the information contained in the Section 7 report, and the resulting concerns about the confidentiality of her address.

38. We ask Cafcass to provide us with evidence that it has complied with this recommendation.