Technical Matter Guide
Law, safeguarding procedure and Cafcass guidance checked 23 September 2026Safeguarding concerns in private-law children proceedings: what happens next?
Safeguarding is not a separate side issue in child-arrangements proceedings. Where there is information suggesting that a child or parent may have experienced domestic abuse or that a child may be at risk of harm, the court must identify the issue, obtain appropriate safeguarding information, manage immediate risk and ensure that any interim or final arrangements protect the child's welfare.
Raising a safeguarding concern clearly
The court needs to understand the behaviour complained of, how it affects the child and what immediate or future risk is said to arise.
A safeguarding concern is usually more useful when it identifies facts rather than only labels.
Form C1A
Form C1A is the HMCTS supplemental form used to tell the Family Court about harm which a child or adult has suffered or may be at risk of suffering, and it can also be used to respond to allegations made by another person.
The current form was amended on 1 June 2026. Litigants should make sure they are using the current HMCTS version rather than an older copy stored elsewhere.
Domestic abuse includes more than physical violence
PD12J incorporates the statutory definition of domestic abuse, including:
- physical or sexual abuse;
- violent or threatening behaviour;
- controlling or coercive behaviour;
- economic abuse;
- and psychological, emotional or other abuse.
Children can be harmed by domestic abuse even where violence is not directed physically at them. PD12J expressly recognises harm from seeing, hearing, experiencing the effects of abuse or living in an environment in which abuse is perpetrated.
Re H-N and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 448: understand patterns, not just incidents
Re H-N remains central to safeguarding analysis in private-law children proceedings.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that coercive and controlling behaviour may only become clear when conduct is considered in context and as a pattern. A series of apparently minor incidents may have a very different meaning when viewed together.
At the same time, factual determination must remain tied to what the court needs to know in order to assess future welfare and risk.
Safeguarding checks, Cafcass and the first hearing
In the standard private-law process, Cafcass ordinarily undertakes safeguarding work before the first hearing.
The usual pre-hearing process
Police checks
Cafcass checks available police information for material potentially relevant to the safety and welfare of the child.
Local-authority checks
Cafcass asks relevant children's services departments about known welfare or safeguarding information.
Adult interviews
A Family Court Adviser ordinarily speaks separately with the adult parties about safeguarding concerns and the child's circumstances.
Safeguarding letter
Cafcass provides the court with the outcome of checks, the concerns raised in the interviews and its analysis and advice.
Cafcass currently says that, in the standard private-law process, its safeguarding letter is normally provided to the court at least three days before the first hearing.
What if the safeguarding letter is not available?
Paragraph 12 PD12J provides an important safeguard.
Where safeguarding checks are not available at the FHDRA and there is no other reliable safeguarding information, the court must adjourn the FHDRA until the checks are available.
The court should not generally make interim child-arrangements or contact orders without that information unless the order is required to protect the child's safety or safeguard the child from harm.
The court is not bound by Cafcass advice
Safeguarding letters are highly important, but Cafcass advises the court. The judge or magistrates remain responsible for the orders made.
That means a party may properly:
- correct a factual inaccuracy;
- identify important information not considered;
- explain why a recommendation does not follow from the evidence;
- propose a different proportionate safeguard;
- or ask the court for further assessment where necessary.
Responding to safeguarding allegations without becoming defensive or unfocused
A safeguarding allegation can feel personally devastating. But the most effective court response is usually forensic rather than emotional.
Work through each concern and distinguish what is accepted, disputed or misunderstood.
| Safeguarding concern | Useful response |
|---|---|
| Fact is admitted | Admit it clearly. Explain relevant context without trying to turn an admission into a denial. Address insight, impact and any change since. |
| Fact is partly admitted | Identify precisely what is accepted and what is disputed. |
| Allegation is denied | Give a concise alternative account and identify the evidence relied upon. |
| Safeguarding record contains an error | Identify the exact error, source document and correction rather than describing the whole report as “biased”. |
| Historic concern has been resolved | Provide evidence of what happened afterwards: treatment, testing, courses, changed arrangements or professional closure where relevant. |
| Risk can be managed | Propose specific safeguards rather than merely insisting that there is “no risk”. |
Avoid these common response errors
- calling every professional “biased” instead of identifying the factual or analytical error;
- responding to an allegation of domestic abuse entirely by attacking the other parent's character;
- producing years of irrelevant messages without identifying what they prove;
- treating a closed police investigation as automatic proof that nothing happened;
- treating an arrest as automatic proof that something did happen;
- confusing social-care involvement with a judicial finding;
- and refusing proportionate interim safeguards simply because the allegation is denied.
Re A (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2022] EWCA Civ 1652: context matters
The Court of Appeal emphasised the need to examine domestic-abuse evidence in its proper context rather than requiring each allegation to be proved by independent documentary corroboration.
Oral evidence can establish a fact. Equally, documents must be examined for what they actually prove rather than treated as automatically decisive.
Correcting professional information
If police, local-authority or Cafcass information appears incorrect, separate:
- the underlying source;
- what that source actually says;
- what Cafcass has reported;
- what interpretation has been placed upon it;
- and what correction or clarification you are asking for.
This makes it much easier for the court to distinguish a factual correction from disagreement with professional opinion.
Section 16A risk assessments, children's services and section 37
Section 16A: a statutory Cafcass duty
Section 16A Children Act 1989 is different from an ordinary section 7 welfare report.
If, while carrying out the relevant Cafcass function, the Family Court Adviser is given cause to suspect that the child is at risk of harm, the FCA must:
- make a risk assessment in relation to the child; and
- provide that risk assessment to the court.
A section 16A assessment should identify the concern and what action is required
Cafcass's current safeguarding policy says a section 16A assessment should explain:
- the specific safeguarding concern;
- the evidence or information supporting that concern;
- the risk assessment;
- what referral or safeguarding action has already been taken;
- and what the FCA is asking the court to do, if anything.
Section 16A is not simply another paragraph in a section 7 report
Cafcass's safeguarding policy treats a section 16A risk assessment as a distinct statutory document because different rules govern its provision and disclosure.
Where serious concerns emerge during proceedings, understanding whether the document before the court is a safeguarding letter, section 7 report, Child Impact Report or section 16A risk assessment can therefore matter procedurally.
Referral to children's social care
Cafcass's current public guidance states that where an FCA is concerned about the child's safety, the FCA is required to make a referral to the relevant local-authority children's social care service as well as reporting the risk to the court.
That referral does not itself mean the local authority agrees that the child has suffered significant harm or that public-law proceedings will follow.
Section 37 directions
A private-law case can sometimes reveal concerns serious enough for the Family Court to require the local authority to investigate the child's circumstances under section 37 Children Act 1989.
A section 37 direction asks the local authority to investigate and consider whether it should:
- apply for a care or supervision order;
- provide services or assistance;
- or take other protective action.
Interim safety while allegations remain unresolved
Safeguarding cases create a difficult interim problem. The court may not yet know whether the disputed allegation is true, but it cannot ignore a credible risk merely because fact-finding has not yet taken place.
PD12J's interim-contact rule
Where fact-finding has been directed or relevant domestic-abuse allegations remain undetermined, paragraph 25 PD12J says the court should not make an interim Child Arrangements Order unless satisfied that:
- the arrangement is in the child's interests; and
- it would not expose the child or the other parent to an unmanageable risk of harm.
A protective interim order is not a finding
This distinction matters enormously.
The court may impose temporary safeguards because it does not yet have enough information to rule out risk. That does not mean the alleged abuse has been proved.
Equally, the absence of a final finding at an early stage does not mean the court should expose the child to unmanaged risk while waiting for evidence.
D [2026] EWCA Civ 969: safeguard first, but do not turn risk into fact by assumption
The Court of Appeal's decision in D is important precisely because safeguarding assessment and judicial fact-finding serve different functions.
Cafcass was entitled to assess possible risk. But where disputed allegations later became materially important to a recommendation for a major change in the child's arrangements, the factual basis required judicial attention.
Consent does not remove the court's safeguarding obligation
PD12J requires the court to scrutinise proposed Child Arrangements Orders even where the adults agree.
In a case where domestic abuse or risk is in issue, agreement between the adults cannot by itself establish that a proposed arrangement is safe for the child.
After domestic abuse is established
Paragraphs 36 and 37 PD12J require the court to consider the abuse within the welfare checklist and assess, among other matters:
- the harm suffered by the child and parent;
- the risk of future harm;
- the effect on the child's relationship with each parent;
- the impact on parenting capacity;
- the likely behaviour of the person against whom findings have been made;
- their understanding of the effect of the abuse;
- and whether future arrangements can operate safely.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.