Tag Archive for: Form C8

Quick answer

Form C8 is used when contact details should not be revealed to other parties in family proceedings.

Those details can include an address, telephone number, email address and, where applicable, the name of a person with whom a child lives.

The protected information is available to the court and relevant agencies such as Cafcass, Cafcass Cymru or a local authority where involved, but should not be revealed to another person unless the court orders otherwise.

Since 1 June 2026, FPR 29.1 also allows a party to indicate that another person’s contact details should be kept confidential.

But a C8 does not automatically redact the evidence you file. You must make sure confidential details do not appear elsewhere in your documents.

What is Form C8?

Form C8 is the Family Court’s confidential contact details form.

HMCTS says it can be used where you do not want your contact details revealed — for example because you believe somebody involved in the proceedings could harm you or a child.

The purpose is straightforward.

Some information is necessary for the administration of the proceedings.

That does not necessarily mean the other party needs to know it.

The C8 creates a mechanism for those details to be provided confidentially.

HMCTS states that the protected details are kept for use by:

• the court;
• Cafcass;
• Cafcass Cymru; and
• a local authority where it is involved in the proceedings.

They should not be revealed to anybody else unless the court orders otherwise.

What changed in June 2026?

There were two connected developments.

First, an amendment to Family Procedure Rule 29.1 came into force on 1 June 2026.

The Ministry of Justice explains that the change extends the protection available under the rule by enabling a party to indicate that another party’s contact details should be kept confidential to the court.

The stated purpose includes improving safeguarding in proceedings involving multiple parties.

Second, HMCTS updated Form C8 on 4 June 2026 with revised wording, text boxes, layout and formatting.

The current form expressly says that it can also be used where you do not want to reveal the contact details of another person in the case.

What contact details can be kept confidential?

The current C8 identifies contact details as including:

• an address;
• a telephone number;
• an email address; and
• the name of somebody a child lives with, where that person is not already a party to the proceedings.

This is important because location can sometimes be revealed indirectly.

You may never type:

“My new address is 10 Example Street.”

But a document identifying the person the child lives with, a particular school, GP surgery, refuge, employer or local service may make the location relatively easy to infer.

Confidentiality therefore requires more than checking the address box on a court form.

The warning every litigant in person should understand

The revised C8 contains a particularly important instruction.

It says that you must ensure that forms and documents submitted to the court do not contain the confidential contact details.

It specifically warns that this includes documents produced by other people, such as medical or financial reports.

And then comes the critical point:

court staff cannot check the documents you submit for accidental disclosure of confidential details.

That means there are effectively two separate tasks:

Doing the first does not perform the second.

Where confidential addresses can accidentally appear

In a document-heavy children case, the same address may appear dozens of times.

Common examples include:

• GP letters;
• hospital correspondence;
• prescription labels photographed as evidence;
• school correspondence;
• SEN or EHCP records;
• dentist records;
• bank statements;
• benefit letters;
• utility bills;
• tenancy documents;
• police correspondence;
• domestic abuse service records;
• email signatures;
• screenshots of online accounts;
• delivery confirmations;
• photographs of envelopes;
• WhatsApp screenshots containing location information;
• calendar entries;
• contact-centre paperwork;
• and previous witness statements.

There may also be indirect identifiers.

For example, a school name may reveal the child’s approximate location.

A GP practice may identify a neighbourhood.

A letter from a housing provider may reveal a refuge or supported accommodation provider.

A screenshot of a journey may display the starting point on a map.

A photograph may contain a visible street sign.

Safeguarding review therefore needs context, not merely a search for one known postcode.

Digital evidence creates additional confidentiality risks

Family proceedings increasingly involve digital material.

That is useful.

It also creates risks which did not exist when every exhibit was simply photocopied paper.

A screenshot may reveal:

• a location;
• a contact name;
• an email address;
• a profile photograph;
• a Wi-Fi network;
• another conversation;
• or information in the notification bar.

A PDF generated from an original document may contain headers or footers which were not obvious on screen.

A document assembled from several sources may repeat the confidential information in multiple places.

And poor redaction can be particularly dangerous.

If you are unsure whether a redaction is secure, create a safe disclosure copy and check the finished document independently before filing or serving it.

How to carry out a confidentiality check

Start by making a list of the information which must not be disclosed.

For example:

• full address;
• postcode;
• telephone number;
• personal email;
• child’s school;
• GP surgery;
• name of refuge or accommodation provider;
• name of protected third party;
• and any information which would reveal the location indirectly.

Then check the actual documents.

Do not rely solely on memory.

Search electronically where possible, but also inspect the pages visually.

Why both?

Because text search may find:

“AB1 2CD”

but it may not recognise the same address embedded inside a scanned image.

Visual checking may identify a map or letterhead which a text search does not.

Conversely, electronic searching may locate a tiny footer you did not notice visually.

The safest workflow uses both.

Protecting a child’s location

In some cases, confidentiality is not principally about protecting an adult’s privacy.

It is about protecting a child.

This may arise where:

• a child and protective parent have relocated;
• there has been domestic abuse;
• there are allegations of stalking or harassment;
• a child is living with another relative;
• a refuge is involved;
• there is a prohibited steps dispute;
• or disclosure of the child’s location could create a safeguarding risk.

Be careful with documents which appear harmless.

A school attendance letter may be important evidence.

But if the school itself must remain confidential, filing the complete headed letter without considering confidentiality may reveal exactly what the C8 was intended to protect.

The evidential question and safeguarding question therefore have to be considered together:

How do I provide the court with the evidence it needs without unnecessarily revealing the information which creates the risk?

Does Cafcass see information protected by a C8?

The current HMCTS guidance says confidential contact details may be used by the court and by Cafcass, Cafcass Cymru or a local authority where involved in the case.

That is different from disclosing those details to another party.

This distinction is important in private children proceedings because Cafcass may need information about where a child is living in order to undertake safeguarding and welfare work.

If you have a specific concern about how a location should be handled by a professional or agency, raise it clearly rather than assuming everybody involved understands the precise risk.

What if you realise you have already filed a document containing the address?

Act promptly.

Do not assume that because a document has been sent to the court the other party has necessarily seen it.

Equally, do not assume that completing a C8 afterwards will somehow remove the information from a document already filed or served.

The correct response will depend on what has happened.

Useful questions include:

• Was the document only sent to the court?
• Was it also served on another party?
• Has it been included in a hearing bundle?
• Is it available through a digital case system?
• Has Cafcass received it?
• What information was disclosed?
• Does the disclosure create an immediate safety risk?

If there is an immediate safeguarding risk, treat it as a safeguarding problem rather than simply an administrative correction.

Contact the court promptly and explain precisely:

• which document is affected;
• where the confidential information appears;
• why the information should remain confidential;
• whether another party has received it;
• and what action you are asking the court to consider.

If there is an immediate danger, appropriate emergency or police assistance may also be necessary.

Confidentiality should not mean losing important evidence

A common fear is:

“If I remove the address, will the judge think I have altered the evidence?”

The aim is not to rewrite the document.

It is to protect genuinely confidential information while preserving the evidential content required by the court.

For example, suppose a GP letter records:

• the patient’s name;
• home address;
• date of consultation;
• clinical observations relevant to an allegation;
• and the GP’s conclusion.

If the address must remain confidential, it may be possible to provide a properly redacted disclosure copy which leaves the substantive clinical information visible.

But context matters.

Do not remove information simply because it is inconvenient or damaging to your case.

Redaction for safeguarding is not a licence to edit evidence selectively.

If the relevance or appropriate treatment of information is disputed, the court may need to give directions.

A practical example

Imagine a parent has left an abusive relationship and moved with the child to confidential accommodation.

They complete a C8.

They later file:

• a witness statement;
• 20 WhatsApp screenshots;
• a school safeguarding email;
• a GP letter;
• and a police disclosure.

The witness statement does not contain the address.

So far, so good.

But:

• the school email contains the school’s full signature block;
• the GP letter contains the new home address;
• one screenshot contains a delivery notification;
• and the police document identifies the new neighbourhood.

The C8 has not failed.

The document review has failed.

That is precisely why confidentiality needs to be treated as part of evidence preparation rather than merely form filling.

Can AI help identify confidential information?

Potentially — but this is an area where caution matters.

AI can assist with identifying recurring information in a large set of text, such as:

• addresses;
• postcodes;
• email addresses;
• telephone numbers;
• school names;
• GP practices;
• and names of connected people.

That can be useful when reviewing hundreds of pages.

But AI should not be treated as the final confidentiality check.

It can miss information.

Scanned documents may not be read correctly.

A system may fail to recognise that an apparently ordinary business name reveals a refuge or location.

And uploading sensitive family-court material into an unsuitable AI service may create an entirely separate confidentiality and data-protection problem.

The JSH Law Six-Question Confidentiality Check

Before you press send: the confidentiality checklist

• Have I used the current C8 where confidentiality is required?
• Have I identified every person whose details require protection?
• Have I checked the C100, C1A or other application forms?
• Have I checked my witness or position statement?
• Have I searched the exhibits for the address and postcode?
• Have I checked school and medical records?
• Have I inspected screenshots visually?
• Have I checked headers and footers?
• Have I considered whether a school, GP or organisation reveals the location?
• Have I checked the hearing bundle?
• Are any redactions actually secure?
• Have I checked the final PDF after creating it?
• Do I understand who is supposed to receive the document?

Do this every time new evidence is filed.

Confidentiality is not a one-off exercise completed when proceedings begin.

The bigger point: digital justice needs safeguarding discipline

Family proceedings are becoming increasingly digital.

C100 applications can be generated online and private family proceedings are progressively moving through digital court systems.

That can make access to justice easier.

But faster movement of documents also means mistakes can travel faster.

A litigant in person may be dealing simultaneously with:

• online applications;
• email filing;
• electronic bundles;
• PDF exhibits;
• Cafcass correspondence;
• screenshots;
• digital disclosure;
• and video hearings.

For somebody escaping coercive control or stalking, one accidentally disclosed page can matter more than hundreds of pages of correctly filed evidence.

The answer is not to avoid digital justice.

It is to build safeguarding into the document workflow.

In a safeguarding case, preparing the evidence is not only about what the court needs to see. It is also about what another party must not be allowed to see.

Worried about what your Family Court documents reveal?

When a case contains years of records, screenshots, school material, medical documents and safeguarding evidence, checking what should actually be filed can become overwhelming.

JSH Law provides defined-scope, non-reserved support for litigants in person, including:

• evidence organisation;
• document and exhibit review;
• chronologies;
• witness-statement preparation support;
• position statements;
• Cafcass responses;
• domestic abuse and safeguarding evidence mapping;
• urgent court documents;
• appeal paperwork;
• court-bundle preparation support;
• and hearing preparation and McKenzie Friend support where appropriate.

If confidentiality is part of the case, it should be considered across the documents — not added as an afterthought once the bundle is finished.

Book a consultation

Primary sources

• Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 29.1.
• The Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025 — amendment to rule 29.1 effective 1 June 2026.
• HM Courts & Tribunals Service — Form C8: Confidential contact details, revised June 2026.
• HM Courts & Tribunals Service — Form C100, revised June 2026.
• HM Courts & Tribunals Service — Form C1A, revised June 2026.
• HMCTS guidance on email filing in family proceedings.