A High Court Family Division judgment of 14 August 2026 sets out the framework for a request to disclose a fact-finding judgment to the immigration tribunal and Home Office, affecting families with parallel child arrangements and asylum proceedings.
Key facts
- Who: Parents and children involved in both private family proceedings and an asylum appeal, and the lawyers advising them
- From: Judgment of 14 August 2026
- Source: F v M (Disclosure to the First Tier Tribunal) [2026] EWHC 2171 (Fam)
The judgment, given by Ms Debra Powell KC in the High Court Family Division on 14 August 2026 after a hearing on 22 July 2026, concerns D, an 8-year-old boy. His mother brought him to the UK in March 2024 without his father's knowledge or consent. The father applied under Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for arrangements to secure his access to D.
The mother and D are appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against a refusal of asylum. Part of that appeal rests on allegations the mother made in the family case: that the father belonged to a powerful group, and that D was sexually abused while in his care. After a five-day fact-finding hearing in January 2026, the judge found neither allegation made out. She found the evidence of abuse "tenuous, weak and inconsistent", and found most of the father's counter-allegations proved. That judgment is published as [2026] EWHC 239 (Fam).
The question
The father, supported by D's guardian, asked for the fact-finding judgment to be disclosed to the First-tier Tribunal, the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration. The mother opposed. The father relied on D's welfare and on the public interest in the administration of justice. He also pointed to a letter from the mother's solicitors to the Tribunal that did not mention the fact-finding hearing or judgment.
The legal framework
The Article 21 proceedings were heard in private. It was common ground between the parties that the fact-finding judgment could be disclosed only with the court's permission under rule 12.73(1)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
The judge set out the guidance in Re C (A Minor) (Care Proceedings Disclosure) sub nom Re EC (Disclosure of Material) [1996] 2 FLR 725, a care proceedings case, on how the court's discretion under that rule is exercised. The factors include the child's welfare, confidentiality, the importance of frankness, the public interest in the administration of justice and the desirability of co-operation between agencies. The judgment also refers to later Court of Appeal decisions, as reviewed in Re G [2023] EWHC 450, which say disclosure should be granted only if it is necessary and proportionate and that Re C creates no presumption in favour of disclosure.
The judge also considered the 2013 Protocol on communications between the Family Courts and the immigration and asylum chambers. It says judges in each jurisdiction are helped by knowing of proceedings in the other and of relevant information disclosed there.
The father cited earlier decisions in which family judges stressed that confidentiality should not be used to conceal adverse findings from a public body with a legitimate interest in them.
What this means for families in parallel proceedings
- In this case, the parties agreed that a judgment from the private proceedings could be disclosed only with the family court's permission under rule 12.73(1)(b).
- The judge set out the factors the court must weigh on such a request, including the child's welfare and the public interest in the administration of justice.
- Anyone with both a family case and an immigration or asylum case should take advice on what each court and tribunal needs to be told, and when.
Sources
- F v M (Disclosure to the First Tier Tribunal) [2026] EWHC 2171 (Fam), High Court (Family Division), 14 August 2026