Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: A Local Authority v D (Chief Constable of A Police Authority Intervening); Re D [2006] EWHC 1465 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:24 PM
Slug : a-local-authority-v-d-chief-constable-of-a-police-authority-intervening-re-d-2006-ewhc-1465-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 20, 2006, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85147

(Family Division; Sumner J; 20 June 2006)

Care proceedings had been instituted in respect of three children following the discovery of serious non-accidental injuries to the youngest child. In police interviews the father had admitted that he had been violent towards the child and he had eventually been charged with child cruelty. During the course of the local authority investigation, documents obtained by the authority (medical reports, a statement from mother alleging that the father had been violent, a statement from father admitting violence to the mother but denying violence towards the child, and a statement from the father withdrawing his confession) were disclosed to the police child protection officer by a social worker. The officer, who was also involved in the criminal investigation, applied to the court for clarification as to whether the documents could be used and whether or not permission for such use was required under the Family Proceedings (Amendment No 4) Rules 2005 (the 2005 Rules).

Under the 2005 Rules, once the police had obtained information produced in relation to family proceedings in the form of a document, they could use that information for child protection purposes, however, confidential information and documents produced for family proceedings could not otherwise be used without the court's express permission. A distinction was to be made between information and documents; the police could use information contained within disclosed documents for child protection purposes, but not the documents themselves without express permission. Using a short quotation from a document would not be using a document and acting in the protection of children was to be given a wide interpretation. When social workers were handing on information to the police it would be helpful if they (i) indicated to the police the source, unless it was confidential and (ii) at an appropriate time informed all parties to the proceedings about the information disclosed. Unopposed applications by the police to use such documents could be considered as paper applications to avoid the time and cost of a court hearing and could be made by the local authority on a directions hearing where use was not contentious and the court had all the relevant information. The 2005 Rules did not permit disclosure to a defence lawyer without the permission of the court; such permission could be sought through a party to the care proceedings, provided notice was given in writing to all parties, the application identified all the documents concerned, and was supported by a letter from the defence lawyer; the court reserving the right to hear argument directly from the lawyer. There was no irregularity in child protection officers becoming involved in the resulting criminal investigations. Permission was granted in the instant case.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from