The Devastating Impact Of Fraudulent Experts In The Family Court
In the recent address made by Sir Andrew McFarlane at the International Family Law Conference, it was his opening statements as to what his remaining time before retirement should be focused upon that were key — Transparency.
“Namely, the processes by which the Family Court may be made more open so that the wider public may gain a greater understanding of the work that is done in the courts on their behalf.”
This matter runs to the heart of what the public should and need to know when they find themselves in the very position every parent does not want to imagine — acrimonious child arrangements in the family courts. Every year in the UK there are roughly 50,000 applications made under the Childrens Act to the Family Court and according to the most recent review of judgements published in the last 12 months there were a mere 29 published for public scrutiny that cited Parental Alienation. The need for transparency therefore could never be greater as it is apparent that whatever decisions Judges and Magistrates are making are confined to absolute secrecy under the laws protecting identification of minors. However this law is not extended to the legal representatives and the professionals appointed to the cases that they manage, oversee and ultimately influence heavily. The professionals that are appointed at various stages to Childrens Act cases are there to guide and inform the courts as to the very best interests of the children involved. This is what the Childrens Act was built on, a foundation of delivering protection and pathways to resolving conflict for the parents.
In a recent memorandum delivered from the Family Justice Council and the President there was speculative clarification on the hotly contested topic of the use of ‘Experts’ in Family Court. Over the years there has been evolving and developing research from a variety of legal and psychological institutions. In the UK the profession of psychologists is regulated by the Health Care Professionals Council. Registration is strict and rigorous in order to ensure that professional standards are always kept high and the public protected from possible dangerous malpractice by unregulated individuals. There are 107 institutions in the UK that offer courses approved for those who wish to join the HCPC, the British Psychological Society also provides clear guidance on what is required to meet their standards as a Psychologist in the UK. As expected there is a minimum entry requirement for graduates of a degree level of 2:2 and evidence of further postgraduate masters and training by accredited institutions and providers. Together with the Family Justice Council and the BPS a comprehensive set of guidelines was produced in 2016 setting out the standards and expectations Judges and solicitors should be conforming to in cases where an expert is deemed necessary. This was created following a comprehensive study commissioned by the Family Justice Council. Authored by Professor Jane Ireland in 2012, the study found that,
“over one fifth were unqualified and were not registered either with the Health Professionals Council (HPC) or the British Psychological Society (BPS). Of the qualified psychologists, over two thirds were clinical psychologists, with the remaining either educational or forensic psychologists. Just under one fifth of the sample referred to themselves as consulting psychologists.”
The response was to create updating Practice Directions that stated psychologists should be registered with the HCPC or have chartered status with the BPS. In accordance with the courts need for transparency it is then surprising to find that unregulated, unregistered and unqualified ‘psychologists’ are still being presented to parents and the Family Court by CAFCASS. Their role is to guide and assist the court in making informed decisions and yet in a recent Freedom of Information request to CAFCASS, they denied any knowledge of knowing one such psychologist expert, despite using her in no less than four cases in the South East in the last two years. This expert cannot be named following a specific request to a District Judge in Croydon and found that despite the President of the Family Divisions most recent memo, there is an afforded immunity being given to these so-called experts who do not meet the guidelines or expectations of professional standards or training required to provide the family courts with specific expertise required. This fell short of addressing the issue of experts being recommended by CAFCASS who were not qualified or registered with either the HCPC or the BPS. Parents rely almost exclusively on the professionals appointed by the court to deliver a high standard of thorough vetting and checks before making suggestions to parents and Judges as to the best people to use and what is needed in each individual case. Guidelines make this point very clear from the Family Justice Council and British Psychological Society,
“ 5.12 Individuals who are not qualified or eligible for Chartered status or registration with the HCPC6 but who may have relevant psychological knowledge may still be appointed at the Court’s discretion but it should be made clear that these individuals are not being appointed as psychologists but under the auspices of other professional frameworks, such as Independent Social Workers with additional psychological qualifications.”
Whilst Family Court is conducted in private, members of the press can attend and report on what they hear in those hearings if it is in the public interest on the legal understanding that the identities of the children are protected. Who then vouches for the experts that do not qualify for registration and regulation with the accepted public regulators and bodies? This falls to a private organisation called The Academy of Experts, not a public body and not open to any public scrutiny either given that they operate outside of standard company structures, meaning their accounts are not made public or available on Companies House, nor is their company number visible on their website, in accordance with the Companies Act. They trade under another name than their registered one, and their complaints procedure consists of signposting to the psychologists primary regulator, (who is the HCPC or the BPS). The public at large therefore has little to no ability to know what vetting process is applied to the experts it has as members. Experts pay a membership fee to purchase accreditation, which courts and Judges seem unaware of the obvious lack of assurance with regards to psychologists and psychiatrists.
In July 2021, the BPS provided a further update with more specifics on the standards and expectations for psychological experts in the family courts. Robust vetting of these individuals must be of the utmost importance if the Uk’s family courts are to withstand any test of scrutiny and fairness in upholding our democratic justice system at all. CAFCASS is operated on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and an open secret is that its officers of the court are widely short of the standards and impartiality required for the children of this country to rely upon for safety and sanctuary, none more so when it comes to domestic abuse.
With the recent debates and long overdue domestic abuse bill raising the topic of parental alienation at every turn, CAFCASS appears to all its users to be operating to a different set of societal expectations and dogma when it comes to domestic abuse. At the point when an expert is deemed to be required in proceedings, it is the role of the CAFCASS officer to offer the court no less than three appropriate experts. These experts are expected to be (found on page 35 of the published guidance); regulated by the HCPC or in that absence be a member of the British Psychological Society, hold a valid enhanced DBS, demonstrate current scientifically accepted methodologies, (pseudoscience being inadmissible) maintain accredited continuing professional development, peer supervision and conform to the practice directions 25 of the family courts. In order to demonstrate competence and provide assurance, CAFCASS must verify any ambiguous elements of their CV, make the relevant checks and at all times remain vigilant to anyone who could be assuming professional status in order to make money. The Legal Aid Agency will and do provide payment to cover the fees of these psychological experts after all, the funds of the public are at risk of being mishandled should CAFCASS and the instructing solicitors not perform the due diligence and compliance checks.
How easy is it for a rogue individual to parade in front of a family court without any of the above requirements? Very easily. Due to the loophole in Practice Direction 25, the wording states, not only should an expert be HCPC registered, but also that it is at the sole private discretion of the Judge to accept anyone else as an expert, even if they do not have all the expected accreditation. This vast gap between the law and personal choice leaves families and children wide open to both interpretation but more sinisterly, abuse by unregulated individuals. They call themselves “career experts”. This means that their sole source of income is from writing court reports and conducting secret assessments that can never be overseen, reviewed or spoken of. Like Fight Club, the first rule of Family Court is you can’t talk about Family Court, the second rule of Family Court, you can’t talk about the first rule of Family Court. President MacFarlane then would need to address this issue directly by demanding that no expert be permitted to undertake any kind of courtroom assessment or report without being strictly regulated by the HCPC and that ideally a centralised database be compiled of all psychologists that have completed a vetting process and be assessed for the highest standard of competency. Currently we are a long way off of the latter. Judges discretion must be done away with on this matter altogether.
An illuminating if not grim research paper was published under the title of “The Rhetoric Case” addressing what goes wrong in the trajectories of the family court systems when the use of highly persecutory language is employed by court professionals. Many parents can attest to the feeling of ‘being set up from the start’ and like a runaway train their case is sent careering off in untold dark trajectories, most commonly and unmistakably for victims that are almost always mothers from abusive relationships with the fathers. Dr Jessica Taylor conceived and reported groundbreaking research, compiled in a study unlike any other of its size and breadth, looking into why women are instantly and wrongly labelled with unexplained mental disorders long before they even reach a final judgement. Mental disorders that have according to the court professionals simply gone undetected their whole lives, until court proceedings begin or separation from abusive partners happens. From Social Workers to CAFCASS officers and even more from vengeful ex partners, they seem committed to placing a highly contentious diagnosis on vulnerable victims of abuse. This is exactly the chink in the armour of the justice system that unscrupulous rogue career experts capitalise on — making money from diagnosing vulnerable women and their children.
From Stockholm Syndrome to severe personality disorders, mothers and their children are being systematically persecuted by terminology that should be exclusively reserved to psychiatric hospitals and the most senior experienced regulated psychologists. A recent conversation with the chairman of the Association of Clinical Psychologists revealed that it is, “our worst nightmare to hear that people like this, unregulated, unqualified and unregistered to any professional body are operating in the most sensitive and delicate areas of mental health”.
The Mental Health Act and the Equalities Act should be protecting the public from such persecution, however it is rarely if ever raised in family court in opposition to mental health diagnosis being tossed into the midst of Childrens Act proceedings. Without any second thought for the impact it does to entire families and the children, these diagnosis are unchallenged by Judges and verified and supported by other professionals with no experience in what they are discussing. Women are diagnosed as so severely mentally compromised that they are seen unfit to be parents at all, there is no restraint shown in the reports prepared by Parental Alienation experts when it comes to making sweeping generalisations and dangerous diagnosis. Judges give both blind faith and total reliance on the psychological reports generated, with little to no understanding of the true real life impact outside the courtroom at all.
A mother diagnosed by an unregulated psychologist as having multiple personality disorders, narcissistic, histrionic, sociopathic tendencies, chronic depression, dysregulated anxiety disorders, the lists are long, will stand no chance of convincing any professional she interacts with that anything her, or her children say is truthful or of any relevance. Immediately referrals are made regarding her safeguarding of the children and more often than not a Section 37 order is made with haste to assess her children being made party to care proceedings. They are immediately placed on Child Protection Plans and further referrals made should her job or profession be one that means she interacts with other children or in a position of authority or care. Should she be a teacher or carer, she is immediately suspended pending investigation. These can last up to two years, without pay. The Disclosure and Barring Service receive another referral possibly to ensure she is monitored and unable to find any further employment in any position requiring a DBS check until the investigation is completed, even voluntary jobs usually require a clear DBS check nowadays. During this time the children are not permitted to access any therapy or counselling, CAFCASS stating that it could reinforce unfactual information “fed” to the children by the mentally unstable mother. By this point the road ahead is one way and dark for all involved except for the father who has accused her of parental alienation. All eyes are away from him and every allegation he has made is now considered probably true regarding her parenting and the children involved. Experts instructed are further asked by the court to provide recommendations for the disordered mothers whilst their children are either whisked into care or off to live with the abusive father. This can often happen early on in the proceedings, known as an Interim Change of Residency. Rarely do these children ever make it home to their mothers’ care again. Recommendations placed before untrained or careless Judges can include a large raft of therapeutic packages that when reviewed for costs alone can easily reach £25–30,000. The really unscrupulous experts make recommendations for these therapeutic packages to be carried out by their business partners, co-directors of their private companies or regular friends in the industry. Some experts are known to always use the same therapists over and over again outside the court for such interventions, thus generating hundreds of thousands from self-crafted teams of co-experts profiting from the reports they were commissioned to undertake impartially. One such unregulated expert confessed during cross examination she had performed roughly 70–100 such reports for the court at a cost of approximately £15,000 each — creating her a single revenue stream of upwards of £1.5 million, before factoring in any of the additional therapy costs associated with each case from her recommendations, each time with the same three people, two of which she co-owns companies with according to companies house.
Barely any of this is admissible in court as mitigation against such rogue diagnosis. Sadly a parent, especially a litigant in person without any legal representation, does not have any opportunity to raise any of this in the desperately underfunded and overcrowded listing schedules of the family courts. Wait times for hearings can easily be six to eight months. Appeals, even urgent and emergency applications can wait months before even a listing date and time is offered and then, they are usually only 1–2 hours long. Parents who litigate by themselves are then subject to the possibility of opposing counsel ‘running interference’ by consuming all the time chatting to the Judge about other matters and monopolising the hearing for their own benefit. Women especially run the huge risk of being faced with a male Judge, a male ex partner and a male barrister representing him, along with a male solicitor representing CAFCASS own interest. When a diagnosis is added to the mix, the mother stands no chance of ever having any fair hearing after the psychologist has submitted their report labelling her abuse as false, created, and her mental health beyond any doubt erratic and not to be trusted.
Transparency would solve many of these issues almost immediately. The public would be ashamed of the justice being metered out in its name. Rogue experts would be instantly out of a job. Mental health charities and advocates would decry the system nothing short of criminal, and those propelling it criminals themselves. Who can the misdiagnosed mother complain to? The HCPC? No, they can only investigate malpractice of registered psychologists. The BPS? No, they can only investigate members also. The professional standards authority perhaps? No, because they only investigate registered professionals. The Legal Aid Agency, the Ministry of Justice themselves, the legal ombudsman? Once again complaints are often only escalated once a case has concluded, which can often take years. The Local Authorities complaints procedure in most counties takes at least two years from when the complaint is made. In a childs lived experience, two years can mean the difference between a mother they knew and one who is a sad memory they have no answers about. Two years in foster care or living with an abuser can cause damage that will last a lifetime for a child of any age. For young children subjected to the therapies recommended by such psychologists, they have been turned, altered, manipulated and reinvented based on a faulty set of new facts and truths that the mother is incapable and was causing them emotional harm. These narratives are forced upon children who have been ripped from protective mothers, having been found by parental alienation experts to have caused significant emotional harm due to wide ranging mental health disorders and negative personality traits. They are given rebonding therapies with the parent they have rejected, (often their abuser) and forced into being complicitly compliant with the therapies offered, hypnosis, EDMR, reprogramming therapy, even conversion therapies. The devastation and mess left in the wake are neither seen by the CAFCASS officers instilling it, the Judges ordering it nor the wider family, school and friends of the children involved. If the children appear altered, negatively affected, depressed, grieving some even self-harming, this is immediately attributed with force to the mentally ill and dangerously diagnosed mothers historic care.
The legal recourse in suing a rogue psychologist for negligence and damages would pivot on firstly proving that they are indeed a professional and rely upon them holding professional indemnity insurance, which unregulated individuals do not possess. In short, there is no current mechanism for a person who has been wrongly diagnosed by an unregulated psychologist. The reports that are filed remain on personal records forever, and can be circulated to any other professional without even the parents consent being required, under the guise of emergency safeguarding. Why we don’t hear about these cases is because of the heavy handed gagging orders that are placed on the grief stricken parent preventing them from talking about anything that is related to their case that could identify their children. Their Article 8 human rights cover this over and above the Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. Penal notices are attached to orders that provide the courts, and particularly vengeful ex’s to report any breach or even a suspected breach in these privacy codes, resulting in heavy fines or in the worst cases prison sentences. Infractions can be accidental, harmless and innocent, such as bumping into a child at the supermarket, or posting a picture of their lost child on their facebook page on their birthdays. These are considered serious breach of the gagging and prohibitive orders.
Heavier sanctions can be reapplied in short spaces of time should grieving mothers not appear instantly cooperative and subservient to CAFCASS and Social Workers. Further persecutionary language becomes embedded in updating reports that are repeated and circulated, words such as “radicalisation, child abuse, danger to herself and others” become passed from one document to the next and the next until they become defacto truths merely by repetition. Reapplications are swiftly made by fathers or local authorities if the children are not instantly happy, resettled and vocally admit their new repackaged truth about their misdiagnosed mothers. Some children maintain their abuse disclosures vehemently, much to the chagrin of the courts and professionals involved, causing even more rigid separation being enforced, more intrusive therapies and harder punishments for non-compliance with the Judges often misguided but well meaning wishes. CAFCASS double down on measures to re-bond these children to their sudden new lives, cease contact altogether with the mentally diagnosed mothers and often cast upon them Section 91:14 barring orders preventing the mothers from even reapplying to the court with real, evidenced truthful pleas to see their own children and their clean bill of mental health. The label never leaves. The diagnosis linger like nooses around necks for the victims of these rogue career experts and there is currently no legal recourse for any involved.
Yesterday a Judge made the decision to grant anonymity to one such unregulated expert that has posed as a Doctor in the family courts for over ten years, for fear the reprisal could damage their reputation and future income. The expert holds no credible qualification at the nationally accepted standards, no regulation by the HCPC, no membership with the BPS and until August of this year did not even possess a valid DBS. The expert passed themselves off as so “specialist” they were beyond the realms of normal regulation and so “unique” that “no other psychiatrist or psychologist has the level of knowledge they possess’ ‘. Their defence for such horrors that should be considered both perjury, criminal, fraud and intent to deceive, along with perverting the course of justice, was that they were truly “unique”. Disregard was had for the historic victims of the same expert, many legally silenced, desperately broken and woefully grief-stricken, their children long gone, taken away and their diagnosis tattooed to them forevermore.
An open investigation into their previous cases should be launched and a public enquiry into all the professionals and Judges that supported the expert to enable them to deceive the public and courts should be had for the restitution of the victims and lost children. Article 10 human rights should never supercede an individuals article 8 rights for anonymity just because a national scandal is brewing.
