Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to feel scared ahead of a Clare's Law disclosure call?

420 replies

Justpickitup · 11/05/2026 16:14

So I did a Clare’s law request on a guy I have been seeing for a few months. I’ve never felt the need to do this before but I just had a gut feeling. He is quite protective and needy. Anyway I did it and now I have to have a video call as they are ready to disclose? I’m really really scared.

OP posts:
plims · 12/05/2026 10:23

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:20

But she responded from the naive post?

She replied to your post where you said “I’m being cautious that’s all. You don’t really know anybody to be honest.”

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:24

Ahh yes just realised it was a different poster sorry

OP posts:
Horses7 · 12/05/2026 10:29

You’ve definitely done the right thing - just wait it out now - keep busy!

IMightNotGoToWorkTodayIMightNotGoAgainTomorrow · 12/05/2026 10:31

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:04

Any of those convictions would have been picked up? They aren’t just going to choose not to disclose to me that he is a sex offender and let me get on with my day

Unless they directly and explicitly told you that when you made the Clare's Law enquiry, you are wrong.

The rules around disclosure are very tight under Sarah's Law and it's an entirely separate law. Disclosures (under Sarah's Law at least) are protected under GDPR.

If you enquire under Sarah's Law, you can get one of four results (as explained to us at the time).

No disclosure.

Nothing at all on record.

There is something on record but they won't tell you any details at all.

Partial disclosure - they will tell you the basics but no details.

I forget exactly what the different criteria were for each bit it's basically, there is a conviction but your child is not considered at risk due to their exact age, sex when considered in relation to the nature of the conviction.

ETA: we were told that there is something on the record but we won't disclose anymore than that means literally that. They will tell you they have found 'something' but nothing more than that. The partial disclose was, I think, the 'name' of the conviction and under which law but no further details and just, "Your child is not of an age/sex to be considered at direct risk."

Full disclosure.

All the details because your child could be affected now or in the near future.

It's possible someone could speak to an officer who might take a risk and suggest they do a Sarah's Law too if they've found something and want to give a heads up but they couldn't disclose directly.

One is processed by the DA dept and the other by the CP dept. Completely different police officers, completely different Law.

Even under Sarah's Law, you don't have an automatic right to know the details. They are not just going to drop it in to a Clare's Law 'nothing to disclose' as an, "Oh, by the way..." anymore than they would have told us about a domestic abuse conviction.

It's very tightly protected and regulated.

Jackson8x · 12/05/2026 10:34

dont be too scared. Clare’s law have to advise you even if things have been nfa’d

plims · 12/05/2026 10:35

IMightNotGoToWorkTodayIMightNotGoAgainTomorrow · 12/05/2026 10:31

Unless they directly and explicitly told you that when you made the Clare's Law enquiry, you are wrong.

The rules around disclosure are very tight under Sarah's Law and it's an entirely separate law. Disclosures (under Sarah's Law at least) are protected under GDPR.

If you enquire under Sarah's Law, you can get one of four results (as explained to us at the time).

No disclosure.

Nothing at all on record.

There is something on record but they won't tell you any details at all.

Partial disclosure - they will tell you the basics but no details.

I forget exactly what the different criteria were for each bit it's basically, there is a conviction but your child is not considered at risk due to their exact age, sex when considered in relation to the nature of the conviction.

ETA: we were told that there is something on the record but we won't disclose anymore than that means literally that. They will tell you they have found 'something' but nothing more than that. The partial disclose was, I think, the 'name' of the conviction and under which law but no further details and just, "Your child is not of an age/sex to be considered at direct risk."

Full disclosure.

All the details because your child could be affected now or in the near future.

It's possible someone could speak to an officer who might take a risk and suggest they do a Sarah's Law too if they've found something and want to give a heads up but they couldn't disclose directly.

One is processed by the DA dept and the other by the CP dept. Completely different police officers, completely different Law.

Even under Sarah's Law, you don't have an automatic right to know the details. They are not just going to drop it in to a Clare's Law 'nothing to disclose' as an, "Oh, by the way..." anymore than they would have told us about a domestic abuse conviction.

It's very tightly protected and regulated.

Edited

That really help info, OP. You haven’t made the correct application to safeguard your children. You need to do that first before making any decisions.

plims · 12/05/2026 10:36

Jackson8x · 12/05/2026 10:34

dont be too scared. Clare’s law have to advise you even if things have been nfa’d

Edited

@Jackson8x you might be on the wrong thread.

liloandstitchh · 12/05/2026 10:43

I just wanted to add that I did a Claire’s law request on my husband. Not because there were red flags but because my relationship before him was abusive and I needed to know. My IDVA worker recommended I do one on future men because my past choice in relationships was so poor, and abusers specifically seek out vulnerable women. If I didn’t marry him I would proceed to do one on every man I met. If I did one on my previous ex’s it would have saved me years of abuse.

They made me an appointment at the local police station and I was shitting myself. They rang me to discuss it and my relationship before the appointment and told me to go in with ID. I went down and they made me sign something saying there was nothing to disclose! I’m not saying this will be the same for you but this was my story. I honestly thought if there was nothing to disclose it would be over the phone but I guess each station is different. My appointment was 4 days after the phone call and I spent 4 days so incredibly worried. I don’t regret doing the Claire’s law though and would encourage all women to do it.

popcornlova · 12/05/2026 10:47

Please if nothing comes back today, considered the fact you feel the need to do it in the first place. He’s shown you something to make you worry. No evidence back doesn’t mean he doesn’t have form just that he hasn’t been reported. I wish you well in this whole thing.

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:47

I think I will do it going forward in every relationship. My mindset has obviously changed since having children.

OP posts:
plims · 12/05/2026 10:54

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:47

I think I will do it going forward in every relationship. My mindset has obviously changed since having children.

Do you mean Sarah’s Law?

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:56

plims · 12/05/2026 10:54

Do you mean Sarah’s Law?

Well I will check the person out in any way I needed to.

OP posts:
LizzieW1969 · 12/05/2026 10:56

plims · 12/05/2026 10:35

That really help info, OP. You haven’t made the correct application to safeguard your children. You need to do that first before making any decisions.

I agree with this, OP. To fully protect your DC, you need to do this.

I'm saying this not just as a CSA survivor myself, but because of a friend of mine, who married a man at the church we were going to at the time who went on to sexually abused her DD from her first marriage.

I now think all women should take that step if they get into a relationship with a new man whilst still with DC at home, especially girls.

plims · 12/05/2026 10:59

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:56

Well I will check the person out in any way I needed to.

Will you be submitting a Sarah’s Law application?

PP was right. I had a Google and this is the information

Sarahs law: allows parents, guardians, and carers in England and Wales to formally ask the police if a person with access to their children has a record of child sexual offenses

Clare’s Law: individuals can ask police if a partner has a history of domestic abuse.

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 10:59

I wasn’t actually aware of Sarah’s law

OP posts:
Scandalicious · 12/05/2026 11:04

I think you should still be careful OP, and listen to your instincts. I say that because experts in the field of coercive control, domestic and child abuse always say that your instincts are crucial and will protect you.

Levithecat · 12/05/2026 11:05

nevernotmaybe · 12/05/2026 09:37

No it isn't.

https://www.justicedirectory.co.uk/blog/clares-law-uk-your-comprehensive-guide-to-domestic-abuse-disclosure

"Who Can Use Clare's Law? Eligibility and Relationships"

" The scheme is specifically intended for those who are in, or are considering entering, a relationship with someone who may have a history of domestic violence or abuse. This includes:

  • Current Partners: Individuals in an ongoing romantic relationship with someone they suspect has an abusive past."

It is for when you have a reason. It is not a free for all criminal check on anyone you might want to start a relationship with.

Edited

I think all men could fit that criteria? The reason I gave was my own past experience of abuse - they were content with this

IMightNotGoToWorkTodayIMightNotGoAgainTomorrow · 12/05/2026 11:06

I now think all women should take that step if they get into a relationship with a new man whilst still with DC at home, especially girls.

Sorry, but not 'especially girls'. There are many CSOs who target boys and parents might lower their guard generally thinking their sons are safer.

But people shouldn't use the checks to replace their own safeguarding practices and instincts. Someone isn't necessarily safe just because they haven't got a conviction. It's an additional tool not a replacement.

I know it's been said before and I'm sure you're well aware, just thought it was worth repeating 🙂

Also worth bearing in mind that there are other forms of equally harmful child exploitation that can't be enquired about so everyone should keep their wits about them when inviting new people into their home/family anyway, which is partly why others and I have said that it's OK to end a relationship just because someome seems a bit 'off' for any reason.

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 11:09

Im not taking the checks as a reason to not be vigilant. People can always change and I honestly am Glad I did it so that nobody could throw it back in my face that I didn’t.

OP posts:
IMightNotGoToWorkTodayIMightNotGoAgainTomorrow · 12/05/2026 11:10

Levithecat · 12/05/2026 11:05

I think all men could fit that criteria? The reason I gave was my own past experience of abuse - they were content with this

A past history of abuse would be a valid reason because professionals now better understand the wider, complex and longer term impact of domestic abuse.

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 11:11

You can guarantee that if anything went wrong down the line people would say well did you check him out before you introduced him to your children? Well actually yes I did

OP posts:
Feis123 · 12/05/2026 11:12

Keep calm, keep calm and keep calm and well done for requesting it. You have a good head on your shoulders!

IMightNotGoToWorkTodayIMightNotGoAgainTomorrow · 12/05/2026 11:15

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 11:11

You can guarantee that if anything went wrong down the line people would say well did you check him out before you introduced him to your children? Well actually yes I did

You actually only specifically checked your safety though. Not theirs.

It is true that DA is now considered a direct, rather than indirect, risk to children but you only checked for domestic abuse.

It's entirely up to you whether you do a Sarah's Law enquiry or not! But I just wouldn't want you to be left under the misapprehension that you would have been told about anything else automatically.

Especially if you want to feel you've covered all bases.

ThreadGuardDog · 12/05/2026 11:18

nevernotmaybe · 12/05/2026 09:23

And are you going to ask them if they are happy from the start for you to check?

It isnt there for your personal checking service. It is actually an abuse of the system to use it to try and check people for the sake of it even if you are in a relationship with someone, or just due to normal relationship issues. You are suppose to have a reason to believe they might have been abusive in the past or might be a danger to you. And the police will not be happy if you tried to just vet partners for the sake of it. And if you start lying to do it, that ironically makes you the one with the red flag partners need to know.

Edited

Codswallop. OP has children and had some concerns about his behaviour. What do you want people to do - wait until someone gets hurt before they check? And where has OP lied ? She hasn’t told her partner and doesn’t need to, but quite frankly any man who would have a problem with being checked out in this way would be a potential red flag.

Justpickitup · 12/05/2026 11:19

I am going to tell him this weekend what I have done and explain my reasons and I think he will 100% understand

OP posts: