[2025] UKUT 117 (AAC)

The documentary evidence before us is the same as the documentary evidence before DBS. Our understanding of it was illuminated by Mr Serr in the course of his helpful submissions.

The appellant came to DBS’s attention when she applied for a DBS check in relation to engaging in regulated activity with adults. In accordance with its usual procedures, on receipt of such a request, DBS requests information from the police. Derbyshire Constabulary responded on 28 November 2022 with information as follows:

Derbyshire Constabulary Ref: 103-22/23 Derbyshire Constabulary hold the following information which is believed to be relevant to the application of [LJCB] for the adult workforce.

The information is as follows:

[LJCB's] unborn child was placed upon a pre-birth child protection plan under the category of neglect on 19th October 2021. This was due to concerns regarding [LJCB's] capacity to safely care for the child, having had a previous child, born in 2015, removed from her care as she was unable to prioritise the child's needs above her own and her abusive partner's.

[LJCB] has had a history of relationships where domestic violence has played a key theme and she has also been dishonest with professionals.

[LJCB’s] child born on 6th January 2022 was placed with foster carers under an Interim Care Order on 14th January 2022. [LJCB] was having virtual contact with her child every two weeks. A final hearing for the child's future is due on 7th December 2022.

After careful consideration, the Chief Officer believes that this information is relevant and ought to be disclosed to an employer in this instance because it relates to local authority intervention regarding the safeguarding of [LJCB's] children, and she has applied for roles within the adult workforce which involve safeguarding responsibilities.

Disclosure will allow the proposed employer to undertake their part in the process diligently and to properly assess any risk that they feel exists before taking suitable steps to mitigate them.

The interference with the human rights of those concerned has been considered and it has been determined that, in this instance, disclosure is relevant, proportionate and necessary.

DBS then appears to have requested disclosure from the appellant’s local authority of documents relating to the appellant’s child born on 6 January 2022 (“Child B”). The local authority provided DBS with two documents:

The Section 47 assessment was written when the appellant was approximately 23 weeks pregnant with Child B. It contains some information going beyond that which was contained in the police information set out above. The additional information includes: that the appellant is 29 years’ old; that she has a diagnosis of depression; that she may have a learning need, but this is denied by her and undiagnosed; her previous child (Child A) was adopted in 2016 “due to the risk of physical and emotional harm whilst in the care of his parents”; the summary section of the assessment (p 49) refers to the appellant having been subject to a negative parenting assessment as a sole carer for Child A, but the more detailed history (p 42) states that “subsequently” the appellant was given the option of separating from Child A’s father in order to care independently for Child A but elected to remain with Child A’s father; there were historic concerns about substance and alcohol misuse (including an admission of cocaine use when forced by a previous partner), but the appellant had volunteered to participate in drug and alcohol testing to ensure no remaining concerns; the appellant had recently fled a domestically abusive relationship and was living in a refuge for a period and at the time of the report was living independently in a flat; the appellant lost another baby previously at 20 weeks due to domestic abuse by a previous partner and there is a 5-year non-molestation order in place against him; she engaged with and completed the Freedom programme in June 2021 from which she reported she had learned a lot about dealing with/avoiding abusive relationships; there are two putative fathers for Child B, one of whom the appellant does not want to be in a relationship with and who she recognises as dangerous, and another who she sees as a positive for her and Child B, although she intends to raise Child B on her own if she can; the appellant had agreed to paternity testing to be carried out to establish the true father; there were no known concerns for unborn Child B’s health and development, home conditions were appropriate and the appellant was attending all appointments appropriately and preparing appropriately for baby’s arrival; the appellant was removed from her own mother’s care when she was younger and may not have a positive role model to show her how to parent her children.

The Section 47 assessment recorded the outcome of the Child Protection Conference on 19 October 2021 as being that the threshold for a child protection plan was met for Child B. The reasons given are as follows:

The second document, the Social Worker Report, was prepared after Child B’s birth on 6 January 2022. It states that Child B was residing with foster carers from 6 January 2022, although the Interim Care Order by the Family Court under section 31 of the CA 1989 seems only to have been made on 14 January 2022. The additional information in this report was as follows: Child B was seeing LJCB three times a week in a local authority contact centre for 1 hr 30 mins; he was very healthy and there were no concerns about his health; LJCB wants him to return to her care and “live as a family unit” but “accepts that necessary assessments need to take place before a decision about [his] long-term care can be made, to ensure that if [he] were to return to their care it would be safe”.

DBS sent the appellant a Minded to Bar letter on 4 July 2023 indicating that it was minded to include her in the adults’ barred list. The appellant made representations in response. In summary, she accepted that she had had problems caring for and safeguarding her child, but she wanted to work in the care sector and with adults and felt like she was being punished by the care system. She said she had made mistakes in her life but now wanted an opportunity to better her life through work as the local authority had advised her to do. She said she was really enjoying the work and did not want to give it up. She said if she had to give up her job, it would exacerbate her depression. “They’ve already taken my child, what else are they try to take from me” (sic).