This is a fictional dilemma based on the MDU's files.

The scene

The member said that the request had come in the previous week, and after some deliberation he was still uncertain how to proceed. He explained that he was familiar with the mother and her 12-year-old son, who were both registered at the practice.

He was aware from his own experience and from reviewing the records that the parents had been married, but that the marriage had ended acrimoniously after alleged incidents of domestic abuse towards the mother.

Since the request had arrived, the member had reviewed the child's records. Although there were third party entries he could legitimately redact, he was concerned about a number of inclusions that he felt the father may not be aware of.

These related to the father's alleged behaviour towards his ex-wife, and the doctor was concerned that they could inflame the situation if the father saw them. The father had not given a reason for the request, simply stating it was his right, and had made several phone calls to the practice manager about the processing of his request that were quite aggressive and threatening.

Our advice

Before calling, the member had read the MDU's guidance on parental responsibility. He said that as far as he was aware, the father did have parental responsibility and it had not been removed at any juncture, so asked if he was compelled to disclose the records as he felt it may compromise the safety of his patients.

The MDU adviser explained that while having parental responsibility is an important factor in securing the notes, it is not the deciding one. The guiding principle is that disclosures always need to be made in the best interests of the child, and need to consider the wishes of the child if possible.

In this situation, it's important to ask if the son has capacity to consent to the disclosure of his records. Similarly, it may be worth considering the views of the mother - would it be possible to find out if she was aware of the request and whether she had any objections that should be taken into account?

The member could redact entries he felt might result in serious harm, but he would need to be able to justify this if called upon, so it would be best to discuss it with a colleague or the practice's data protection officer

If the notes were required for court - for example, in court custody proceedings - then the court can order the disclosure if the practice is unable to comply with the father's request in its entirety.

The outcome

The member sought the opinion of the patient's mother, who had no objection to the disclosure overall. Similarly, the patient himself, who the member deemed to have the requisite Gillick competence, also consented to the disclosure.

The member redacted the third party entries and what he thought could be significantly harmful, after discussion with practice's data protection officer. He heard nothing further in relation to the case.