Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

English family court gives no significant weight to a social worker's assessments after finding they were generated with Microsoft Copilot

In a care-proceedings judgment dated 30 September 2026 ([2026] EWFC 306, Family Court sitting at Truro), the judge examined how an expert instructed in the case, whom the judgment calls an ISW (an independent social worker), had prepared a parenting assessment of the father, two addenda and two kinship assessments of maternal relatives between June and September 2026. The judgment records that she disclosed no AI use in her first report and, when asked, wrote that Microsoft Copilot had been used to organise information and assist in drafting. Text that the judge identified as Copilot's own summary appeared in both kinship assessments, and in oral evidence she said Copilot summarises her transcribed notes and generates her report, confirming that one kinship assessment was entirely AI-generated from her notes. The judge found that the analysis of the evidence, headings, layout and construction of the reports were AI-generated, that this was a higher-risk use which affected the weight of the reports, and that the leftover Copilot text showed inadequate human oversight. The parenting assessment also contained factual errors (it said the father accepted the court's findings, and called a child autistic without a diagnosis); the judge said it was not clear whether these came from the AI or the original notes. Citing both the AI use and a lack of rigour, the judge found that no significant weight could be placed on the ISW's evidence, and made final care orders for the three children. The judge saw no significant issue in the use of Copilot for transcription and grammar and noted it is a closed, secure tool.

AI system
Microsoft Copilot
Occurred
5 Jun 2026 to 30 Sept 2026
Reported
30 September 2026
Event location
United Kingdom
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Professional HarmReputational Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source
9 claims: 9 documented. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Microsoft Copilot, used by an independent social worker within a secure organisational environment to summarise her transcribed interview notes and generate her assessment reports for care proceedings

Reported harm

The judgment found that the independent social worker's assessment reports had been generated with Microsoft Copilot from her notes without adequate oversight, that this reduced the weight they could carry, and, together with a lack of rigour, that the court could place no significant weight on her evidence; the criticism appears in a published judgment.

Outcome

Resolved

The court gave the ISW's evidence no significant weight and made final care orders for the three children, approving an amended care plan that keeps a future placement with the maternal relatives under review. No source read reports any professional or regulatory action against the ISW.

What remains unknown

  • Whether the errors in the father's parenting assessment were produced by Copilot or were in the ISW's original notes; the judge left this open.
  • Whether any professional body or the instructing parties took further action concerning the ISW.
  • Whether the people interviewed for the assessments knew their transcribed conversations were processed with Copilot.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The judgment records the ISW's own statements that Microsoft Copilot summarised her transcribed notes and generated her reports, and that one kinship assessment was entirely AI-generated; it quotes text the judge identified as Copilot's own summary left in two reports. The judge found the reports' analysis, headings, layout and construction AI-generated and said this higher-risk use affected the weight that could be given to them, a reason, alongside a lack of rigour, for placing no significant weight on her evidence. Whether factual errors in the father's assessment came from the AI or her notes is left open.

9 claims: 9 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented Between June and September 2026 the ISW prepared a parenting assessment of the father, two addenda and two kinship assessments of maternal relatives for the care proceedings.

Causal attribution. Record of the reports; no AI attribution in itself.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'prepared a number of reports for these proceedings: a parenting assessment of the father dated 5 June 2026; an addendum in answer to questions put dated 7 July 2026; a kinship assessment of D and E dated 25 July 2026; a kinship assessment of F and G dated 25 July 2026; and a further addendum dated 10 September 2026'
Documented The ISW disclosed no AI use in her first report and, when asked, wrote in an addendum that Microsoft Copilot had been used to organise information and assist in drafting, while saying it did not generate evidence or conclusions.

Causal attribution. The judgment quotes her own statement; her position that the conclusions were hers is preserved.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'did not disclose any use of AI tools in the preparation of her original report of 5 June 2026'; 'Microsoft Copilot was used within a secure organisational environment as an administrative support tool to:'; 'Copilot did not generate evidence, undertake analysis, or form conclusions'
Documented Both kinship assessments contained text that reads as the AI tool's own comment on its drafting, which the judge identified as Copilot's own summary.

Causal attribution. The court found the text was Copilot output left in the reports.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    '‘This version is about half the length, avoids advocacy, acknowledges the children's complexities, and is more likely to withstand cross-examination'; '‘This wording keeps the tone balanced and analytical while clearly highlighting the changed circumstances since the earlier assessment.’'; 'the inclusion of CoPilot’s own summary demonstrates that there has not been adequate human oversight of the contents of the report'
Documented In oral evidence the ISW said Copilot summarises her transcribed notes and generates her report, and confirmed that a whole kinship assessment was AI-generated from her notes.

Causal attribution. The judgment records her own account of how the AI produced the reports.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'CoPilot summarises the transcripts and generates her report'; 'She initially said that she used it to improve her spelling and grammar but then confirmed that the whole of the kinship assessment of D and E was AI generated from her notes.'
Documented The judge found that the analysis of the evidence, headings, layout and construction of the reports were AI-generated, that generating an entire report from notes is a higher-risk use affecting the weight of the report, and that oversight was inadequate.

Causal attribution. The court's own finding connecting the AI generation to the reduced weight.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'the analysis of the evidence, the sub headings, lay out, construction and development are all AI generated'; 'this is a higher risk approach which in my view impacts on the weight that can be attached to her written document'
Documented The parenting assessment wrongly said the father accepted the court's findings and wrongly described a child as autistic; the judge said it was not clear whether these errors came from the AI or the original notes.

Causal attribution. The court leaves open whether the AI caused these errors.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'It was not clear whether they were due to AI or the original notes.'; 'Reported that the father ‘accepts the findings of the court’. That is not factually accurate.'; 'Refers to C has ‘having autism’ when there is no diagnosis of same.'
Documented Citing the AI use and a lack of rigour and clarity, the judge said no significant weight could be placed on the ISW's evidence.

Causal attribution. The adverse consequence rests on both the AI use and other shortcomings the court found.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'In addition to the significant issues with the use of AI, I found'; 'written and oral evidence to be lacking in rigour and clarity of thought. I do not feel able to place any significant weight on her evidence.'
Documented The judge saw no significant issue in using Copilot for transcription, grammar and spelling, describing it as a closed, secure tool with no risk of publication.

Causal attribution. Context: the court did not find a privacy problem with the tool.

  • caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'uses CoPilot to digitally transcribe her conversations and assist her with her grammar and spelling then I see no significant issue. Microsoft CoPilot is a closed secure AI tool. There is no risk of publication.'
Documented The court made final care orders for the three children, with a care plan keeping a future placement with the maternal relatives under review.

Causal attribution. Outcome of the proceedings; the judgment does not attribute it to the AI use.

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English (original language) on 2026-10-29 from the Find Case Law XML; no translation. Applies to s1.

Event countries: United Kingdom. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: United Kingdom.

The reports were prepared for care proceedings in the Family Court sitting at Truro, England, and the judgment was given there. The judgment does not state where the ISW lives or works.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-29: Published from the court's own judgment: it records the ISW's statements that Microsoft Copilot generated her assessment reports from her notes, quotes Copilot text left in two reports, and finds that this AI generation, with a lack of rigour, meant her evidence could carry no significant weight.

People described

An independent social worker instructed as an expert in English care proceedings, whose written assessments the court discounted

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the ISW who used Copilot and whose evidence the court discounted. The parents, children and relatives are parties to the proceedings, but the judgment does not attribute any adverse outcome for them to the AI use, so they are not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#family-court#care-proceedings#expert-report#microsoft-copilot#ai-generated-report#court-judgment

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). English family court gives no significant weight to a social worker's assessments after finding they were generated with Microsoft Copilot. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-english-family-court-gives-no-significant-weight-to-social-worker-assessments-generated-with-microsoft-copilot

BibTeX

@misc{2026_english_family_court_gives_no_significant_weight_to_social_worker_assessments_generated_with_microsoft_copilot,
  title = {English family court gives no significant weight to a social worker's assessments after finding they were generated with Microsoft Copilot},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-english-family-court-gives-no-significant-weight-to-social-worker-assessments-generated-with-microsoft-copilot}
}

Related cases

Medium Microsoft Copilot (reported)

Madison newspaper reporter fired after story ran with invented quotes the paper blamed on unauthorized AI use; she says company-installed Copilot added them

On 13 July 2025 the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison, Wisconsin, published on its front page a reporter's story about redevelopment proposals for a downtown block. It quoted the co-owner of a cafe that does not exist and described proposal features that the developer says were not in its proposal. The paper removed the story and on 17 July published a re-reported version with an editor's note saying the original contained incorrect information and quotes created by an unauthorized use of AI. The reporter, who had been with the paper for a couple of months, told Isthmus that she ran her finished draft through the AI program the company had installed on her work computer, Microsoft Copilot, which she believed was approved for checking copy, and that the AI-edited version contained the invented quote. She says she was fired by phone the day the re-reported story ran, without a formal investigation, and later lost her health insurance and has had little luck finding another job. She takes full responsibility for the errors and also points to rushed editing and the absence of an AI policy or training. The paper said it does not comment on personnel matters.

Low Microsoft Copilot (reported)

Derbyshire Police refer a senior detective to the police watchdog, which opens a gross misconduct investigation into the officer's use of AI

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said, as reported by the BBC on 10 August 2026, that Derbyshire Constabulary had made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June 2026, following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force, and that the senior detective had been served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct. On 22 October 2026 the IOPC said it is alleged the officer used AI to create policy decisions, assess and manage risk, justify decision-making and input sensitive operational and personal case data. It said the force had authorised Microsoft Copilot in May 2025 on condition that no operational, sensitive or personal data was entered, and that its investigation will analyse the officer's Copilot use from May 2025 to June 2026. The allegations are untested.

Low ChatGPT

3M dropped an expert witness in a Houston explosion trial after discovery showed he had used ChatGPT to draft his report, CBS News reports

In a 2026 Texas trial over 3M's role in the January 2020 Watson Grinding explosion in Houston, which killed three people, an engineering expert retained for 3M used ChatGPT to prepare his expert report, according to discovery records and transcripts reviewed by 404 Media and CBS News. One prompt asked ChatGPT to show how 3M was 0% at fault for the explosion. The plaintiffs' lawyers, who found a citation overlay document and then hundreds of pages of prompts, said ChatGPT produced more than 80% of the report. Under questioning, the expert acknowledged using AI to help draft the report but defended his research. CBS News reports that after the deposition 3M's attorneys removed him from their witness list, and the plaintiffs subpoenaed him to testify about his prompts at trial. The expert's lawyer said he did not delegate his opinions to ChatGPT and called public characterisations a selective distortion of the record; 3M said he was an independent witness who used AI as a tool after reaching his own conclusions. The jury found 3M negligent and the court awarded the victims $61.5 million; 3M said it would appeal.

Medium Unidentified AI drafting tool

Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post

In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents