Withholding the identity of professionals from parents in care proceedings

In A Local Authority v CD & Ors [2026] EWHC 980 (Fam) the Local Authority had brought public law proceedings in respect of a child known as GA. Her parents were members of an “alternative ideological group” which believed the state was engaged in a child trafficking conspiracy. Members of the group had issued “judicial notices” to those who they believed had committed crimes, including “necromancy”. Following one such notice, the Father had, with others, entered a court building to attempt to kidnap a coroner. He had been convicted and spent a period of time in custody, but had been released on license by the time the Local Authority made its application.

GA had been taken into foster care early in proceedings. The parents had sent threatening letters to the local authority, alleging kidnapping and child trafficking. Specific social workers and legal representatives were named. Probation officers noted the Father’s intention to “carry on with his work”, and that he had named a social worker who had “made up lies” about him. Cafcass carried out a risk assessment which found a high risk that their staff would face physical violence and that their home addresses would be identified.

Both the Guardian and the Local Authority applied to the court for an unusual order: that the names and identities of the Guardian, the Child’s solicitor, and the social work professionals, be withheld from the parents.

The application was transferred to the High Court for determination. The parents attended the hearing in person, having refused to instruct solicitors. They provided lengthy documents written in “quantum grammar”, but had only shown limited engagement with the substance of proceedings, refusing to recognise the authority of the Court.

The Application

This application sought to prevent not just the publication of professionals’ identities, but their disclosure within the proceedings themselves. The Court noted that such an application was perhaps unique. However, it could be made under the Court’s inherent equitable power to grant injunctions.

The Court had to balance competing principles. On the one hand, the authorities noted that open justice was among the “most precious” tenets of law, particularly in “distinctly intrusive” care proceedings. The application would engage the parents’ right to a fair trial, and right to a private and family life. The most comparable authority, Re W (Children) [2002] EWCA Civ 1626, had commented that “cases in which the court will afford anonymity to a professional social work witness will be exceptional”.

On the other hand, the Court had to consider the professionals’ rights to privacy and protection from harm. The magnitude of psychological and physical harm which the parents and their fellow group-members posed was high. While the level and immediacy of risk was difficult to assess, it would increase towards a final hearing.

Most importantly, however, the child’s right to a fair trial was also engaged. The parents’ failure to properly engage, increased the importance of the Guardian’s as protector of the child’s interests increased. However the present Guardian – the third - had stated expressly that they would withdraw if their anonymity was lifted. Cafcass’s evidence was that they may be unable to appoint a fourth. Other professionals would likely also decline involvement. Replacing them – if it were even possible – would delay proceedings. This was clearly contrary to the child’s interests. Where the rights of the parents and the child conflicted, those of the child had to prevail.

Conclusion

The court considered that the exceptionality test of Re W was met. There was a risk of harm to the professionals. Failure to mitigate the risk would undermine the child’s right to a fair trial. Given the parents’ past and present conduct, the Court could not be satisfied that anything less than the order sought would mitigate that risk.

Accordingly, the court made an order withholding the identities of the professionals. They would be able to attend hearings remotely, with cameras off. The Guardian could use a pseudonym. The parents could communicate with them via generic email accounts or telephone numbers.

Jack Sheard is a pupil barrister at 42BR.  Katie Phillips KC and Eléonore Berthelsen of 42BR represented the Local Authority.