Dear President and Lord Ponsonby,
Request to review cases of child removal where unregulated expert psychologists have been instructed
We write to request an urgent review of all cases involving a transfer of residence where an unregulated expert psychologist was instructed, whose opinion was based on ‘parental alienation’ or similar pseudoscientific concepts. As highlighted by the recently published Family Justice Council Guidance on alienating behaviours, these concepts are most commonly raised following allegations of domestic abuse and child abuse, which will include domestic-sexual violence and child sexual abuse.
As you are aware, there have been growing concerns about the appointment of psychologist experts in family court proceedings who are not registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and, therefore, not regulated. The Family Justice Council and British Psychological Society have issued guidance in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, strongly advocating against the appointment of such unregulated experts. Each set of guidance warns that: “Only HCPC Registered psychologists have the relevant clinical experience and training to conduct psychological assessments of people and make clinical diagnoses and recommendations for treatment or interventions.” The 2024 Guidance adds that: “There is an inherent risk of confirmatory bias if instructions and assessments are framed solely in terms of allegations of alienating behaviours.” Nevertheless, the practice of appointing unregulated expert psychologists persists, and they continue to conduct psychological assessments and make clinical diagnoses, and some frame their assessments solely in terms of ‘parental alienation.’ The Family Procedure Rules Committee is currently addressing this issue but has not yet reported.
The number of children who have been removed from a parent (usually the mother) by court order on the basis of assessments by unregulated expert psychologists is not known. Small-scale qualitative studies (see, e.g., Grey 2023; Birchall and Choudhry 2021) and reports to the Harm Panel inquiry, Women’s Aid, the UN Special Rapporteur for Violence Against Women and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner suggest that such orders have increased in recent years. In many cases, the children have minimal or no contact with their mother. There is no systematic or longitudinal research on the outcomes for children of transferring residence in these circumstances. A small-scale US study found that removal of children from the care of a so-called alienating parent, either to the care of the other parent or to institutional or foster care, can cause continuing abuse and lasting psychological harm to children, particularly if all contact is suspended between children and their primary carer (Silberg and Dallam 2019). The impact of child removal on adult victims is also not well researched, but Project Lighthouse, who support mothers who have experienced child removal following domestic abuse, have found their service users have a very high prevalence of suicidal thinking and long-term complex trauma.
The problematic issue of child removal consequent on the appointment of an unregulated expert psychologist was recently highlighted in the investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and Tortoise Media, which exposed, in particular, extremely problematic views and practices by the unregulated expert, Melanie Gill. The investigation revealed that Ms Gill, an unregulated psychologist, has little regard for evidence-based decision-making in private law family proceedings involving allegations of domestic abuse. Her recorded comments include assuming that a mother has “consciously or unconsciously” alienated children from their father and that current family court judges have “bought into” ideas about domestic violence that have been “spun internationally by radical feminism.” She also reassures a father during a consultation that police call-outs for domestic abuse are not a barrier to obtaining contact with their children and that she will only need to declare to the court any conversations between her and the father once she has been formally instructed. We consider that her comments amount to a failure to meet the standards of fairness and independence required of an expert witness and are contrary to family court law and policy, including Practice Direction 12J, the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and recent Family Justice Council guidance on alienating behaviours.
It is not yet known when the Family Procedure Rules Committee will report on the issue of the appointment of unregulated experts. Leaving aside the issue of whether a change to the rules will be sufficient to prevent this practice, even if rules or legislation are promulgated that prohibit the appointment of unregulated expert psychologists, this will not help those children who have already been removed from their primary carer. The plight of these children is, in many cases, simply unknown. It is not known whether they are thriving or have suffered irreparable harm. Based on the limited available research, there have to be concerns about the likelihood of the latter. For this reason, we request an urgent review of all cases involving a transfer of residence where an unregulated expert psychologist was instructed whose opinion was based on parental alienation or similar pseudoscientific concepts. We are concerned that assessments and recommendations made by Ms Gill and other unregulated expert psychologists have led to children being unjustly and unsafely removed from their mothers.
Furthermore, whilst we understand that the work of the Family Procedure Rules Committee is ongoing and a priority for the Ministry of Justice, we are concerned that this commitment was first announced on the 23rd of April 2024 by Lord Bellamy, who was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Justice at the time. In the nine months since the announcement was made, further child removals may have been undertaken on the recommendation of unregulated expert psychologists. To prevent further harm and unsafe decisions, we kindly request that all efforts be made to progress the rule change and consultation process as quickly as possible.
The family courts must uphold the highest standards of evidence-based decision-making, particularly when ruling on life-changing matters involving children and vulnerable parents. The use of unregulated expert psychologists and pseudoscientific concepts, such as parental alienation, has led to state-sanctioned decisions that we suspect may have placed children at risk or unjustly separated them from protective parents. We urge you to act swiftly to rectify any miscarriages of justice by enabling procedures for the review of all cases in which children have been removed from their primary carer on the basis of parental alienation and on the opinion of an unregulated psychologist.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the necessary steps to address this urgent matter.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Charlotte Proudman & Dr Adrienne Barnett
Directors, Right to Equality
Co-signatories:
Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno, Lecturer, University of Manchester, Director and Founder, SHERA Research Group.
Olive Craig, Senior Legal Officer, Rights of Women
Ciara Bergman, CEO of Rape Crisis England and Wales
Dr Rachael Grey, CEO of Project Lighthouse
Luci Coffey, Legal Services Manager at We Stand
Kiran Dhami, Head of Policy, Women’s Resource Centre
Angie Herrera, Director, Latin American Women’s Aid
Abigail Ampofo, Interim CEO, Refuge
Isabelle Younane, Head of External Affairs, Women’s Aid
Natalie Page, Partner, Eight Street LLP, Director, Survivor Family Network.
Hannah Wright, Mothers Against Coercive Control and Violence
Maureen Connolly, CEO, Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid
Dr Emma Katz, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Edge Hill University
Sarah Learmonth, PhD researcher, London School of Economics.
Sarah Taylor LLB (Hons) Independent Domestic Violence Advocate.
Vicki Wharton, Shera, Family Court Survivor
Katie Mander, Senior Lecturer in Creative Education, University for the Creative Arts
Dr Saira Khan, HCPC Registered Chartered Counselling Psychologist
Dr Hannah Jones, Senior Lecturer & HCPC Registered Forensic Psychologist, Queen Mary University
Dr Donna Bramwell – Research Associate and SHERA member
Nic Robson, PhD Researcher Manchester University and SHERA member
Dr Ludivine Garside, University of Bristol Law School and ADR UK Research Fellow
Rachel Horman-Brown, solicitor
Dr Rima Hussein, Senior Lecturer, Northumbria University, SHERA Research Group
Zoe Dronfield, Survivor / Campaigner / Technologist
Manveet Chhina, Solicitor