Self-incrimination in care proceedings - CA 1989 s. 98
No self-incrimination excuse in care proceedings under Part IV or V. Statements inadmissible except for perjury. CA 1989 s. 98.
In any proceedings in which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, no person shall be excused from— giving evidence on any matter; or answering any question put to him in the course of his giving evidence, on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse or civil partner of an offence. A statement or admission made in such proceedings shall not be admissible in evidence against the person making it or his spouse or civil partner in proceedings for an offence other than perjury.
Text in force at .
Source: legislation.gov.uk — The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk), reproduced under licence Open Government Licence v3.0.
What it actually says
In any court hearing for a care or supervision order (Part IV) or an emergency protection order or child assessment order (Part V) under the Children Act 1989, no person can refuse to give evidence or answer a question because it might incriminate themselves or their spouse or civil partner of an offence. However, any statement or admission made in those proceedings cannot be used as evidence against that person or their spouse or civil partner in any other criminal proceedings, except for a charge of perjury. This means you must answer, but what you say is protected from being used against you later, except if you lie under oath.
When it applies
- A parent in care proceedings is asked whether they hit their child and refuses to answer because they fear assault charges.
- A social worker is asked about their own actions during a child protection investigation and hesitates to answer for fear of disciplinary action.
- A relative called as a witness in emergency protection proceedings is asked where they hid the child and refuses to answer to avoid obstruction charges.
- A step-parent in supervision order proceedings is asked about their drug use and says they will not answer because it could lead to a criminal conviction.
What this section does not say
- This provision does not apply to criminal proceedings themselves; it only applies to civil care proceedings under Part IV or V.
- It does not give a blanket immunity from prosecution—only the specific statement made in these proceedings is inadmissible, not other evidence.
- It does not cover proceedings under other parts of the Children Act 1989, such as private law proceedings for section 8 orders (Part II).
- It does not excuse a person from answering questions that might incriminate someone else (only themselves or their spouse/civil partner).
That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.
Or open a session directly and invite the other party.
We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.
This page reproduces the text of CA 1989 s. 98 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.