{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-29T07:31:58.974Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"care-proceedings","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-english-family-court-gives-no-significant-weight-to-social-worker-assessments-generated-with-microsoft-copilot","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'‘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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'I am satisfied that on the evidence before the court the right outcome for each child is the making of a final care order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"the court gave no significant weight to the ISW's evidence after finding her reports were Copilot-generated","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"},{"label":"published judicial criticism of inadequate oversight of AI-generated expert reports","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/306","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English (original language) on 2026-10-29 from the Find Case Law XML; no translation.","independence_group":"ewfc-2026-306-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"English family court gives no significant weight to a social worker's assessments after finding they were generated with Microsoft Copilot","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2026-06-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-30","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Microsoft Copilot","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/306","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] EWFC 306 (Family Court at Truro, care proceedings judgment), 30 September 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-29T03:11:03.60357+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-29T03:11:03.60357+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["family-court","care-proceedings","expert-report","microsoft-copilot","ai-generated-report","court-judgment"]}]}