A senior social worker found to have abused his ex-partner and caused “lasting disability” has lost his fight to block details being shared with the regulator Social Work England (SWE).
In a high court ruling, Mrs Justice Knowles said details of the case should be disclosed to the organisation, overturning a decision by a family court judge.
She also issued guidance that could make it harder for those working with children and vulnerable people to hide findings of abuse made against them from their regulatory bodies.
Judge Farooq Ahmed had found the social worker fractured his ex-partner’s hand “causing lasting disability” and used his temper to “frighten and control her”.
He also found the man, who worked with vulnerable adults, was verbally abusive in front of the couple’s child – named in court as “Z” – and upset them by hitting the family dog.
But Ahmed refused an application by SWE to disclose his judgment, claiming it would affect Z’s welfare. He accepted the father’s position that if he were to be suspended or lose his job it would affect the child’s maintenance.
It was left to Z’s mother to appeal against the decision after the regulatory body failed to challenge it.
She told the Guardian: “This was not my fight to take on. I felt like a turkey voting for Christmas because my financial circumstances could be impacted if my ex loses his job. But it was a vital matter of public protection.
“When findings of abuse are made behind closed doors in private family courts they are not disclosed to the perpetrator’s professional body without permission of the court. So guidance from Knowles is really crucial.”
The principle, she said, was not just about social workers but all those in public safeguarding roles such as the police, teachers and health professionals.
She said: “When I first heard the news about the police officer David Carrick my blood ran cold because I realised that him, or someone like him, could have findings of domestic abuse made against them in the family court – and those findings may not be disclosed to the appropriate regulatory body. That is why this is so important.”
At a high court hearing last month the social worker, who represented himself, said Ahmed’s decision should be upheld.
But the mother’s barrister, Charlotte Proudman, told Knowles: “This case is of significant public interest because it concerns the impact of findings of serious abuse on the employment of a parent who works with vulnerable people where safeguarding is a key issue.”
As a result of Ahmed refusing to disclose his ruling to SWE “vulnerable people that the father is entrusted to care for could be at serious risk of harm”, she added.
Jessica Purchase, a barrister representing SWE, said the regulator had received a referral “raising a concern” about the man’s fitness to practise.
In a judgment published on Thursday, Knowles said Ahmed had failed to conduct the correct balancing exercise when considering the public interest. And she wrote: “In my view the judge fell into error by not inviting submissions from SWE prior to making his decision.”
Furthermore, she granted the appeal on the grounds the judge’s view that SWE could conduct its own investigation in the absence of his fact-finding judgment was “misconceived”.
To assist other judges she wrote: “I suggest that where a party to family proceedings works with vulnerable people or children and where a court has made findings of fact that may call into question that party’s fitness to perform their role, the court should consider whether its findings and judgment should be disclosed to the relevant regulatory body.”
Knowles added that the court should take responsibility for considering disclosure in order to prevent the victim of abuse having to draw the matter to the court’s attention.
It also follows that a disclosure to a regulatory body would lead to that person’s employer also learning of the findings, the judgment suggested.
Proudman said: “This is an important decision that will hopefully ensure the public is safeguarded. Domestic abuse is not just confined to a personal or private relationship. The risk of harm extends to those people with whom the perpetrator works.”
SWE said it had applied for a transcript of Ahmed’s fact-finding judgment and had acted as an intervenor in the appeal of the court’s refusal of its application. Its executive director of regulation, Philip Hallam, said: “Further context around SWE’s involvement in this appeal is set out in the judgment.”
