Dear The Right Honourable Sir Andrew McFarlane, Chair of the Family Procedure Rule Committee and President of the Family Division
Lord Ponsonby, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice
Alex Davies-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice
CC to:
Lady Chief Justice Dame Sue Carr
Shabana Mahmood MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Jess Phillips MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Safeguarding)
Janet Daby MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing)
Sarah Sackman KC MP, (Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice)
Lucy Rigby MP, Solicitor General
Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls
Unregulated Experts in the Family Courts
We, the undersigned, write this letter to express our deep concerns regarding the continued use of unregulated professionals in the family court. This letter defines unregulated experts as those without the appropriate qualifications to meet recognised professional standards required for registration with a UK regulatory body and, therefore, not subject to regulation by external supervisory or regulatory bodies. Explicit in this is the public protection function, which is that someone who is found unfit to practise can be prevented from doing so or ‘struck off’.
A voluntary register or membership of an expert witness organisation does not provide this protection.
Existing guidance from the Family Justice Council (FJC) and the British Psychological Society (BPS) clarifies the difference between those psychologist experts who are qualified to complete assessments and those who are not. In the UK, only Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) registered practitioner psychologists have the relevant clinical experience and training to conduct psychological assessments of people and make clinical diagnoses and recommendations for treatment or intervention. However, adhering to this guidance is not a requirement in the family courts, and despite the recommendations from these esteemed bodies that only suitably qualified professionals be utilised, unregulated experts continue to be used.
The courts have determined that the appointment of unregulated psychologist experts was an issue to be resolved by Parliament. Parliament defers to the decisions of individual judges. Between the two, a gap has widened, allowing harm to occur exponentially with the continued appointment of unregulated experts. The courts diminish the value, safety and expertise regulation ensures by upholding unregulated experts as equal to regulated experts.
Proposed Action – closing the regulatory gap
On 23 April 2024, Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Brinton and Baroness Butler-Sloss presented an amendment put forward for the Victims and Prisoners Bill to ensure that victims are only subjected to psychological assessments by an expert regulated by the HCPC. This was picked up in the Justice Committee and passed to the Family Procedure Rule Committee (FPRC) to address. The FPRC set a timescale of 6 months to complete its work. While this is awaited, unregulated ‘experts’ are free to cause harm in the family courts. With each delay, the urgency of implementing regulations grows more pressing as unregulated experts continue to operate without accountability or meaningful oversight. This perpetual cycle of deferral compromises the well-being of those in family court, particularly victims.
We call for decisive action to be taken promptly to address this glaring gap in accountability and protect the rights and safety of those navigating the legal system. We urge you to commit to upholding ethical standards by protecting survivors and experts through prohibiting the use of unregulated individuals. We further call on the Family Procedure Rule Committee to set clear and effective rules regarding the regulation of experts.
Current regulation of psychology practice
Unlike in many other countries, the title ‘psychologist’ is not protected within UK law. This means that currently, anyone, regardless of their qualifications, can call themselves a ‘psychologist’ and offer services to the public. The current situation is that regulation has focused on the use of certain psychology titles (such as Clinical Psychologist, Educational Psychologist known collectively as Practitioner Psychologists), which are protected in law and regulated. However, this does not prevent an individual from calling themselves ‘a psychologist’ and offering services to the public – such as psychological assessments or therapy.
Unlike in other healthcare roles, such as nursing, there is nothing to prevent an unregistered and unregulated ‘psychologist’ from offering treatment or assessment outside of the NHS/Education. Unfortunately, the previous government’s response to a professional body petition on this issue did not commit to ensuring this public protection by closing the regulation gap, “The Government has no plans to make the professional title ‘psychologist’ a protected title. However, our regulatory reform programme, which is underway, will consider protected titles more broadly.”
Unregulated psychologist experts and ‘Parental Alienation’ - an example of harm to survivors
In our family courts, children are being removed from the care of their primary carer (mostly their mothers) on the basis of psychological evidence provided by self-styled psychologist ‘experts’ who do not have the necessary qualifications and training to be registered as practitioner psychologists to assess them autonomously – as would be required in the NHS or education.
Sanctioning the use of unregulated experts 1 by judges in proceedings is proven to be deeply harmful to survivors and children and poses a significant risk to the integrity of regulated bodies. The Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP-UK) has raised the potential ‘harm to the public’ caused by the instruction of unqualified psychological ‘experts’ to assess children and parents, make non-evidence-based treatment recommendations and produce unsound evidence that is relied on by the court.
This has been particularly highlighted in cases in which mothers have experienced significant fear due to the use of unregulated experts whose evidence has been used to support allegations of so-called ‘parental alienation’ and intimidate mothers; allegations which have been used to distress, frighten, and confuse victims of rape and domestic abuse. The President of the Family Division himself has acknowledged that there has been an "upsurge" in such cases.
This controversial concept where one parent is said to have manipulated a child into rejecting the other parent has been identified as a legal strategy used to harm victim-survivors, denounced by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls and declared as a national threat to women and children in the UK. They highlighted concerns raised about evidence provided by unqualified and unregulated experts, “Such experts subject both adults and children to intrusive, inappropriate and retraumatizing psychological assessments and employ judgmental and dismissive attitudes towards victims of domestic violence” (p 15).
---------------------------------------------
1All unregulated experts pose risk. In 2019, the case of George Rusz was reported widely by both the mainstream and legal press. This McKenzie Friend ran a ‘litigation firm’ and was found by the High Court to be professionally negligent in the handling of his client’s clinical negligence case. He was held to the same standard as a qualified lawyer as he had sold his expertise as a qualified legal adviser. Meanwhile, in 2017, the BBC focused on problems with paid McKenzie Friends in light of the high-profile conviction of paid McKenzie Friend David Bright for perverting the course of justice. He was found guilty of submitting a false psychologist’s report to court that was written by his partner, Claire Mann, who was falsely claiming to be a clinical psychologist.
--------------------------------------------
The UN report highlights how domestic abuse allegations are regularly circumvented by claims of so-called ‘parental alienation’ claims used against mothers, a circumvention recognised within the Ministry of Justice’s Harm Report. During the report stage sitting on 23 April 2024, Baroness Helic stated, “The sorry truth is that we continue to see allegations of so-called parental alienation used routinely by abusers and the so-called experts they produce in the courts to try and discredit children’s testimony and avoid the charges they face. Victims are even encouraged not to disclose domestic abuse as it will only see them cast as unco-operative.”
In February 2023, the President of the Family Division accepted the position of the Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP-UK) and emphasised that so-called ‘parental alienation’ is not a diagnosable issue but is a question of fact for the court to determine. Additional guidance on responding to such allegations is being set out by the FJC.
However, in May 2023, Mr Justice Keehan, a family court judge, accepted the recommendation of another unregulated expert in A and B (Children: ‘Parental Alienation’) (No. 5), Re [2023] EWHC 1864 (Fam), which informed decisions to place a child in her father’s custody.
Also, in 2023, a mother claimed that evidence submitted to the family court by another unregulated psychologist was used by her abusive ex-partner to bolster his harassment of her. The father, described by the judge as ‘hostile’, had accused the mother of so-called ‘parental alienation’. The mother, who previously tried to have the expert’s evidence removed from her case, said in an interview that the father's accusations of alienation “ramped up”.
Diminishing Expertise and Integrity
The court is in a position of authority and power, discerning the evidence presented before it. Utilising unregulated ‘expert’ testimony compromises the integrity of legal proceedings by opening the door to biases, unreliability and, in some cases, distortion of factual reality. The court must be held to the highest possible standards—why should experts not be held to the same, especially when serving within a courtroom? Expert opinion is only sought when absolutely necessary, and this testimony should be held to rigorous standards to ensure accuracy, expertise, and professionalism.
The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) sets and enforces mandatory standards of proficiency, standards of conduct, performance and ethics, and the standards for continuing professional development. It is preposterous that individuals are allowed to operate in a courtroom, influencing outcomes without the regulation or oversight considered standard and essential for other contexts. These are not extraordinary requirements – they are already mandatory in the NHS and education.
Accountability is essential to maintain trust and integrity in the family by ensuring practitioners adhere to recognised standards, follow ethical guidelines, and continuously upgrade their skills and knowledge and are fit to practise. It serves as a safeguard against malpractice, exploitation and other forms of misconduct. Without accountability, there is little recourse for those harmed by negligent or unethical behaviour. Lack of accountability poses significant risks to vulnerable individuals and undermines the credibility of the profession. Unregulated ‘experts’ have no such accountability.
Unregulated experts disparage the work of qualified professionals and jeopardise justice and the well-being of survivors, particularly mothers who are survivors of abuse, as has been seen in amassed research and news coverage.
Together, by grounding justice in accountability and regulation, we can ensure integrity in the courts and psychological professions. We further urge the government to support our calls to bring forward a Family Justice Bill and to align existing frameworks for how the psychological /emotional abuse of children is understood to that in statutory guidance regarding child abuse [assets.publishing.service.gov.uk], and with that for coercive and controlling behaviours [gov.uk], domestic abuse [gov.uk], in confirming that the burden of proof remains with the accuser and not the accused. This would require finding clear evidence of specific psychologically manipulative behaviour by a parent and clear evidence of the significant harmful impact of this on the child - this would also ensure that decisions made remain focused on the welfare of the child.
Questions to the FPRC:
- How do you intend to approach the development of a rule regarding prohibiting unregulated experts in the family courts?
- What stakeholders will be involved in this process?
- When will you complete this work as the 6 months outlined have passed?
- What urgent interim measures can the FPRC implement to prohibit any further unregulated experts acting in the courts whilst this work is undertaken?
Signed,
Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP-UK)
Professor Mike Wang Chair Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP-UK)
Dr Jaime Craig Director of Policy & Governance Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP-UK)
Royal College of Physicians, London
Dr John AM Gall, Consultant Forensic Physician, Expert Witness Lead, Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine
SHERA Research Group
Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno PhD, Lecturer, University of Manchester, Director and Founder, SHERA Research Group.
Dr Adrienne Barnett, Reader in Law, Brunel Law School, Brunel University, non-practising barrister, research domestic abuse and the family courts. Founder and Core member, SHERA Research Group, Co-Director, Right to Equality.
Dr Emma Katz, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, History, Geography & Social Sciences, Edgehill University, Founder and Core member, SHERA Research Group.
Mia Scally - CPsychol - Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology/Forensic Criminology - Middlesex University
Katie Mander - Senior Lecturer, Creative Education
Vicki Wharton Shera EBE and Core Group Member
Eleanor Laidlaw Brown, Coercive control PhD Researcher, NHS Healthcare Professional, Survivor, Trustee of DVA charity and SHERA core group member
Dr Rima Hussein, Assistant Professor and Co-lead of Gendered, Violence and Abuse research group, Northumbria University. Shera core group member.
Sara Davison, The Divorce Coach, patron of the Dash Charity, author, podcaster and media commentator.
Dr Saira Khan, HCPC Registered Chartered Counselling Psychologist
Nic Robson, family court PhD Researcher, SHERA member.
Rachel Horman-Brown, solicitor Watson Ramsbottom Ltd
Gulfiaz Khan, survivor and Shera core group member
Cris McCurley, Partner, Ben Hoare Bell LLP
Natalie Page, Partner, Eight Street LLP, Director Survivor Family Network, Core Founder member, SHERA Research Group
Right to Equality
Dr Charlotte Proudman, Family Law Barrister, Campaigner, and Founder of Right to Equality
Lucy Hayton, Right to Equality Policy and Campaigns Consultant
Allison Quinlan, Right to Equality Manager and former support service provider
FiLiA
Lisa-Marie Taylor, CEO, FiLiA
FiLiA Hague Mothers
Ruth Dineen, FiLiA Hague Mothers international coordinator
Other:
Dr Stella Kingett, NHS Consultant Psychiatrist
Professor Keith Rix MPhil, LLM, MD, FRCPsych, Hon FFFLM, Visiting Professor of Medical Jurisprudence, University of Chester
Dr (h.c.) Viv Bickham MBE Independent DHR Chair and Practice Advisor
Hold Up Your Hands, A collective working together to raise awareness of the Family Court and the danger that it poses to Domestic Abuse victims and their children.
Clare Walker Consulting, Domestic Abuse Consultant
Tracey Norton, Disabled Mothers’ Rights Campaign co-ordinated by Winvisible
Anne Neale, Support Not Separation Coalition
Jane Atkin
NHS Healthcare professional and volunteer at DA charity
Dr Rachael Grey, CEO, Project Lighthouse
Helen Parr, CEO, CARA (Centre for Action on Rape and Abuse)
Dr Ludivine Garside, Senior Research Associate, University of Bristol
Leanne Patrick QN, Specialist Nurse in Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence
Becky Booth, CEO, We Stand
Carmel Offord, Engagement Manager, Independent Domestic Abuse Services (IDAS)
Isabelle Younane, Head of External Affairs, Women’s Aid
Amra Dautovic Head of Operations Waythrough
Assoc Prof Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson, UCL Everyday Disasters and Violences Research Group Lead and Associate Professor in Policy and Intersectionality, UCL, London, UK
Vivienne Hayes, CEO, Women’s Resource Centre
Sara Kirkpatrick- CEO, Welsh Women’s Aid
Catriona Rubens, Solicitor, Leigh Day
Nikki Dhillon Keane, founder, Safe in Faith
Dr Shonagh Dillon, CEO, Aurora New Dawn