Unregulated experts could be banned from the family courts under new proposals for proceedings involving children in England and Wales.
The Family Procedure Rule Committee, which sets the rules in family court cases, has proposed changes to the rules, which are now out for public consultation. It follows growing concern from MPs and campaigners about court-appointed experts who advise on life-changing decisions without having the necessary qualifications. But some organisations say it does not go far enough.
The court can appoint experts to carry out assessments and provide evidence that informs judges’ decisions on child welfare matters, such as which parent a child should live with or whether they should be placed in the care of the local authority.
In recent years, concerns have been raised about court-appointed psychologists being instructed to carry out assessments, make diagnoses and recommend therapy beyond their expertise. The concerns, first highlighted in the Observer in 2022, relate in particular to cases featuring allegations of “parental alienation” – a disputed concept that describes a child’s rejection of one parent because they have been manipulated by the other.
Part of the issue is that anyone can call themselves a “psychologist” – it is not a protected title. And while guidance says that psychologists appointed by the court should be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), an unregulated expert can still be brought in at the judge’s discretion.
Earlier this year, an undercover investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Tortoise Media exposed the controversial views of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, whose advice has been instrumental in the removal of a number of children from their mothers.
In December 2023, the president of the family division highlighted the “need for due rigour” in the process of expert instruction but said tighter regulation of the title “psychologist” was a matter for parliament. The judgment followed the dismissal of an appeal by a mother whose children were removed from her care against their wishes after Gill said she had “alienated” them from their father.
The proposed change would mean an expert must either be regulated by a UK statutory body – which for psychologists would be the HCPC – or be on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority.
Prof Mike Wang, chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK, said the change would be a big step forward. However, the proposal says that an unregulated expert can still be used if the issue in question can only be resolved with the expertise of someone who is not regulated, although the judge would have to give reasons for their decision.
Wang said: “I think the intentions are good, and it’s going to be much harder if not impossible for bogus expert witnesses to be appointed to give evidence in the family courts. But we would say the exception should be removed. We are worried there are some judges who may use this loophole to justify carrying on using someone who is not regulated.”
Wang also said the courts should not use the exception to avoid delays. “If it means there is a delay because you are waiting for an expert to become free, then that is what must happen – you can’t sacrifice the quality of an assessment in order to meet a time constraint.”
The proposed rules apply to all expert witnesses but concerns have predominantly related to expert psychologists, who are instructed by the courts to give advice on mental health, substance misuse, trauma, relationship difficulties and abuse.
Only psychologists registered with the HCPC have the skills and training to make clinical diagnoses and recommend treatment.
Wang said: “To ensure quality advice it is crucial the family courts only use those who are HCPC-regulated if they require any form of psychological expert.”
The charity Rights of Women also believes the proposed changes do not go far enough – specifically in blocking evidence from experts approached before the court’s involvement or in preventing historical reports from influencing a live case. Olive Craig, the charity’s legal adviser, said: “We are concerned that these proposals do not address the specific harm caused by the use of psychologists and psychotherapists who push their personal beliefs about parental alienation.
“Evidence from these experts should be inadmissible in court. This means their reports should not be allowed to be used as evidence at all. We will be asking the Family Procedure Rule Committee to include this within the proposed rules.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We agree that only the most qualified experts should be able to give evidence in proceedings, which is why we are currently consulting on this issue. We will carefully consider each response before any changes are finalised.”
The public consultation closes on Friday 6 June 2025.
