Psychologist’s ‘alarming’ views on domestic abuse throw spotlight on family court experts

The biases of a court expert whose advice has been pivotal in the removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers’ care have been exposed by an undercover investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and Tortoise Media.

Melanie Gill is an unregulated psychologist who has given evidence in hundreds of family court cases over more than 15 years. Speaking to an undercover reporter, she described how the new generation of family court judges “haven’t got a bloody clue”. She said they have bought into ideas about domestic violence, “spun internationally by radical feminism”, that “all men are violent, all women are victims”.

Gill, 67, specialises in cases involving allegations of parental alienation, a subject TBIJ has been reporting on for 18 months. Parental alienation is a heavily contested concept that describes a child’s unjustified rejection of one parent through manipulation by the other.

During two calls with a reporter posing as a father seeking advice in the aftermath of a breakup, Gill claimed professionals representing children during family court cases are often “pulled into the alienator’s distorted thinking”, and dismissed “hopelessly biased” domestic violence charities that “validate” women’s allegations of abuse.

The calls, published today alongside a podcast, raise serious questions not only about Gill’s ability to act impartially but also about the credentials of those appointed by the family courts to advise on potentially life-changing decisions.

By her own estimation, Gill has given evidence to the family courts in as many as 200 cases involving child welfare. As an expert witness she is duty-bound to provide fair and accurate evidence, and independent opinion.

Jaime Craig, a consultant clinical psychologist who helped write the guidance on how courts should make use of psychologist expert witnesses, listened to the recordings of the calls in full.

He said: “You cannot listen to these calls and have confidence that Gill would give an unbiased assessment of a mother who has alleged she has been the victim of domestic or sexual abuse. [It] is extremely alarming.”

In one case, a mother told us how she has not had any contact with her children for five years after Gill advised a judge she had alienated them from their father. Evidence used against her included Christmas cards in which she says she told her children she loved them and would “see them soon”.

“They will have changed so much by now that I actually don’t know if I would recognise them if they passed me in the street,” she told TBIJ and Tortoise.

Gill is one of a number of experts who specialise in parental alienation and are not registered with a regulator, which holds professionals to account for bad practice. This can be because they lack the qualifications to call themselves a certain type of psychologist (such as clinical or forensic), though they may have experience in the relevant field.

While a landmark appeal in 2023 (relating to a case Gill was involved in) said courts were free to appoint unregulated psychologists, it emphasised they should be cautious in doing so.

Giving judgment on the issue, the president of the family division confirmed anyone could call themselves a psychologist and that it was up to parliament whether a “tighter regime should be imposed”.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson told TBIJ: “We share the concerns about these unregulated ‘parental alienation’ experts and we are working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to prevent them from giving evidence in the family courts.”

In a statement provided after being told of the undercover calls, Gill said our interpretation of her comments was “distorted” and that she had no confidence that we would report this matter fairly.

She said: “The narrative and questioning continue to show a significant gap in your understanding of regulation and evidence-based assessment on these specific cases, and the very complex nature of the family dynamics involved and particularly the effects on children.”

‘Deeply concerning’

Our undercover reporter posed as “Charlie”, a separated father considering taking a case to the family court because, according to his former partner, his two children are refusing to spend time with him.

Charlie did not describe himself as abusive but said the police had been called to his home after he punched a wall during an argument. Later he said he had trapped his ex’s arm – he said accidentally – in a door during the incident.

He told Gill, who was unaware she was being recorded, that his ex told him his children don’t want to see him and one daughter is scared of him, and that he is afraid of losing them. Gill offered immediate reassurance.

Without having solicited further information, Gill appeared to conclude that his former partner had turned his daughters against him, “consciously or unconsciously”.

When discussing the the incident that led to the police call-out, Gill took his version of events at face value. She seemed unconcerned that he could pose a potential risk to his family and even suggested his former partner may have lied about the event. “False allegations are a big thing in these cases,” she said, “massive.”

She later launched into a diatribe against the “feminist perspective” on domestic abuse.

“There’s a huge international movement to cancel experts in this field and say parental alienation doesn’t exist and that it’s being used by violent fathers to gain control of children over victim mothers … and only women are victims. When in fact, what you see in figures throughout the world is it’s actually evening up.”

(Recent police data from England and Wales shows more than twice as many women are victims of domestic abuse than men.)

Craig, former member of the Family Justice Council and lead author on published guidance on the role of psychologist experts, said the recordings highlight the “danger of being wedded to a model or ideology”.

“This dismissing of domestic abuse when we know there’s a huge overlap with allegations of alienation and allegations of domestic abuse is deeply concerning,” he said.

‘Like the wild west’

In custody disputes, experts can be appointed by the courts to carry out psychological assessments of the family. They are usually jointly instructed by all parties and have a responsibility to provide an objective opinion, to be heard alongside evidence from both sides.

Their input can inform life-changing decisions made about the welfare of children: whether they should be removed from the care of one or both parents, or even placed in the care of the local authority.

There has been growing disquiet from lawyers, MPs and women’s rights groups about those expert psychologists who, like Gill, are not registered with the regulatory body – the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).

Gill, who describes herself as trained in “attachment and forensic assessment”, is neither a clinical nor a forensic psychologist. Her latest CV is 13 pages long and says she specialises in “child forensics”. HCPC officials have previously asked Gill to remove a reference to “child forensic psychology” from her CV as it was potentially misleading. (Forensic psychologists need to have completed an approved master’s course – which Gill has not – and are regulated by the HCPC.)

Justin Ageros, a family law barrister for 32 years, said: “There has been, for some time, a cohort of experts who purport to specialise in parental alienation … that cohort of experts, in my experience, is dangerous.

“Before there was any understanding of where they were coming from and the biases and prejudices that they brought to cases, I remember having to cross-examine those experts in court.

“What was terrifying was the extent to which, because they styled themselves as experts and produced frankly incomprehensible CVs – which would appear credible, appear to be impressive – judges would say, ‘What am I to do? Am I to dismiss this evidence? This is an eminent expert.’ It was like the wild west.”

Gill’s lack of regulation has proved no barrier to her involvement in family proceedings. She says she has been instructed “probably 150 to 200 times”. Her evidence has been instrumental in removing children from their parents.

TBIJ has identified cases of six mothers who between them have had 11 children removed from their care after Gill told the family court they had alienated them from their fathers. In all but one of the cases the mothers had either no contact or very limited supervised contact with their children thereafter.

In two of the cases the court had made findings against the father of either domestic abuse or coercive and controlling behaviour. In the others the mothers had raised allegations about either domestic abuse or child sex abuse but these were either not tested by the court or not proven.

In a further case, Gill found it was the father who had alienated two children from their mother to the point one of them posed a physical risk to her. Gill recommended to the judge, along with a psychiatrist who agreed with her assessment, that the two children should be removed from the mother and placed in foster care. The judge in the case praised Gill’s evidence as “fair, balanced” and “child-focused”.

It is impossible to know if any of these decisions would have been different if another expert had been advising the court.

‘They said I had given the children false hope’

When a finding of alienation is made, a parental alienation expert might recommend that all contact is cut with the “alienating” parent, typically for 90 days, while therapy is undertaken.

If a parent feels there has been a miscarriage of justice, there is little they can do about it. They can be found in contempt of court if they speak out.

Erin* is only able to discuss her case because the judge permitted their judgment to be published.

In an interview she told us how she has not had any contact with her children in the five years since they were removed by the family courts after Gill advised that she had alienated them from their father. Erin said she was not given the chance to say goodbye, and has not spoken to them since – or even seen any photographs.

“Anyone would assume there was some history of criminal behaviour or serious child neglect,” she said. “But in fact there was no complaint made against me until my ex-husband took me to court for full custody and made very serious allegations, which he did not evidence and the court did not ask him to.”

Unable to afford a lawyer, Erin said had no option but to represent herself against her wealthy ex-husband at the point Gill was instructed.

According to a court judgment, the children were temporarily moved to the father’s care “principally on the basis of the report from Melanie Gill, but also with support from the children’s guardian and the local authority”. The judge wrote that face-to-face contact with the mother should be temporarily prohibited.

Less than a month after the children were removed from their mother’s care, the judge made a further order for “no contact at all” after Erin was criticised for the wording she had used in Christmas cards to her children. In the cards, which were given to a social worker but never passed on, she said, she told her children she loved them and would “see them soon”.

The messages, the judge later wrote, were “non-child centred”. “They said I had given the children false hope of ever returning,” Erin explained.

TBIJ and Tortoise have seen copies of police reports and GP records that indicate Erin was a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband.

On one occasion when the police were called, she alleged her husband had punched her twice in the face and had grabbed her around her jaw. There was visible bruising to her face and neck, injuries which a police report notes were consistent with her allegations. Erin said the police dissuaded her from pressing charges on the basis she would be able to seek a protective order through the family court.

The judge however said: “I accepted the evidence of Miss Gill that domestic abuse has an effect, but its effect, even if it were found as asserted by the mother, is not continuing.”

Instead, Gill said, it was Erin’s troubled early relationship with her own mother that was affecting her reaction against her ex. By contrast, Erin told us she’d had a happy childhood.

After hearing Gill’s evidence, the judge concluded “it would be disproportionate to conduct a fact-finding hearing in relation to cross-allegations of domestic abuse by each parent”.

Gill told the court that Erin should undertake a treatment known as schema therapy. But Erin said she contacted more than a hundred schema therapists and none would offer her the therapy, saying she didn’t meet the criteria. Unable to fulfil the requirements of the court, Erin has not been allowed any contact with her children for more than five years.

Ten-fold rise in alienation cases

There is no official data about the number of cases featuring allegations of parental alienation in the family courts but, giving evidence to the justice select committee in April last year, the president of the Family Division said there had been a “complete upsurge”.

The lack of available information, and the concerns about the life-changing influence of court-appointed experts, led TBIJ and Tortoise to use an undercover reporter to explore the motivations of those who specialise in parental alienation.

We also analysed publicly available judgments – which account for just a tiny fraction of all judgments in family courts. This sample suggests a more than ten-fold rise in alienation cases over the last decade.

In 2015, three judgments featured the terms “parental alienation” or “alienating behaviour(s)” compared to 39 in 2024. The analysis took into account judgments published by family court judges, including high court judges, and the court of appeal.

Olive Craig, senior legal officer at the charity Rights of Women, believes that sample probably gives a fair representation of the family justice system as a whole.

She said: “Judgments are more likely to be published in cases with complex litigation histories and in appeals but this data also reflects a trend we see on our family law advice service.

“Where published judgments show an increase of this nature, it is reasonable to assume that increase is reflected in everyday practice in the family court where around 50,000 private law applications are made each year.”

Children can of course be weaponised in acrimonious divorce proceedings. But new guidance acknowledges that while alienating behaviours can cause significant harm to children, evidence suggests those that actually affect a child’s relationship with either parent are relatively rare. It adds: “Therefore despite an increasing number of allegations being made, findings of alienating behaviour will also be rare.”

Costly therapeutic interventions

Melanie Gill is far from the only expert proponent of parental alienation. A lucrative industry has sprung up around the idea children can be alienated from one parent and need therapy to help repair that relationship.

Concerns have been raised, in particular by MPs, about the financial incentives some experts may have to diagnose parental alienation. An expert report can cost as much as £10,000, and therapy – which the expert may be involved in overseeing – can cost many times that again.

Guidance issued in May 2022 states that once an expert has carried out an assessment for the court, they should not go on to recommend therapy offered by themselves or linked providers due to the conflicts of interest involved.

Nor are therapeutic interventions necessarily successful. In the case where, on the recommendation of Gill and a psychiatrist, a court placed two alienated children in foster care, Gill was tasked with identifying and monitoring therapy for the children so they could be safely returned to the mother.

It was said in a January 2022 judgment she would work with the local authority – which was to fund the therapy at “considerable” cost – “towards reunification of the children”. But a further judgment published 18 months later indicated the therapy had not been a success, at least for one of the children, who had withdrawn after 15 sessions.

The judge noted: “[Child A] said the therapist had been useless and he didn’t want to talk to anyone associated with Ms Gill.” They said the child, who presented as distrustful of all professionals and “feels very strongly” his voice was not being heard, said “he despised the psychologist Ms Gill and that she had manipulated the case”.

In another case a judge was asked to consider the work of Karen Woodall, another unregulated expert who led the arrangements for a child’s transfer of residence to their father, which had “failed badly”.

The case featured a father, who had lost contact with his children despite being “an intelligent man who plainly loves his children”. Woodall was one of three experts who recommended a transfer of residence to the father but was the only one who said the move should be “permanent”.

The judge wrote: “I did not follow the advice of Ms Woodall and even so the transfer and period of residence with the father proved to be deeply traumatic.

“Within a short period of time, they ran away […] several times, refused to eat and exhibited extreme distress.”

The judge said the plans had involved an “underestimation of the likely reaction of the children”. He said the move had been “devised principally” by Woodall who was described as a “psychotherapist and the leading therapist of the Family Separation Clinic in London”.

Woodall, a psychotherapist, was sanctioned by the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) in 2015 after it found the service she provided “fell below the standard that would be reasonably expected”. Woodall has been involved in other cases where she has not been criticised.

In May 2016 she wrote on her blog that the sanction had been lifted and the case closed after she complied with the requirements of the BACP. She said the complaint, made by a client in an “out of court case”, was “only partly upheld”. She added that she had chosen not to rejoin the BACP.

‘We have lost our humanity’

While regulation by the HCPC should be the “kitemark” for resolving questions over a psychologist’s qualifications, according to the president of the Family Division, it is not a catch-all solution. Experts attached to regulators have also taken it upon themselves to diagnose parental alienation in the family courts, sometimes with devastating effects for families.

In another case, a 90-day “reunification plan” devised by an independent social worker “went extremely badly”, according to a 2023 judgment by Justice Lieven.

The efforts to bond two girls, then aged 10 and 12, with their father came after an independent social worker Trish Barry-Relph wrote a report which stated they were suffering from “severe parental alienation”.

The plan – that they should be moved to their father’s care for 90 days – was endorsed by a different judge who had dismissed 10 allegations against the father made by the mother. She was to have no unsupervised contact with her children during the three-month period.

Barry-Relph, who is regulated by Social Work England, also, unconventionally, moved into the father’s home as part of the assessment process. But things did not go to plan.

The sisters became “very destructive”, smashing a television and breaking a window before jumping from the first floor to escape. After being found by the police, they were later placed in foster care with the eldest child telling carers she would hang herself if returned to her father’s home.

Lieven wrote in a further 2023 judgment that it was the clear view of the local authority that “the reunification plan was misguided and the role of Ms Barry-Relph was unhelpful”.

The judge, who ordered that the eldest child could return to her mother’s care, stressed that “children are autonomous human beings who have their own feelings and their own perceptions”.

She also said criticism of the mother made during cross-examination “bordered on the inhumane”. It was said she had broken the rules during the no-contact period after hugging her daughter at the school fence.

Lieven said the mother “had acted as any loving parent in her situation would have done”.

“Somewhere in the history of this case we have lost our humanity,” she wrote.

Grieving lost children

Barrister Justin Ageros believes cases where a child is removed from their primary carer and all contact with them is stopped are “relatively rare”. But he added: “The fact we know there are mothers who are not seeing their children and haven't had their children living with them for years on the advice of these experts, I think is an absolute scandal.”

Ageros said guidance issued in December, which clarifies that unregulated psychologists should not be used in parental alienation cases, could present an opportunity for parents seeking a review of the findings where such experts have recommended the removal of their children.

“The case law says you can reopen findings of fact if there are significant new events or developments,” Ageros said. “The fact that removal was recommended on the basis of experts who could no longer be instructed [means] I think it’s arguable that you could reopen those findings.”

But he added: “The difficulty is that tragically in some of those cases they’re not children any more. They’ve been removed for so long.”

Had Erin’s case came to court today it could be handled very differently. The new guidance says where there are competing allegations of both domestic abuse and parental alienation, judges should view the case through the lens of the abuse allegations.

It says claims of parental alienation will fail if made by a parent whose abusive behaviour has caused the child to reject them. Equally, the guidance states that false or unproven allegations of domestic abuse do not in themselves amount to alienating behaviour.

And it makes clear that any psychologist whose opinion is sought by the court should be regulated and that it is “inappropriate” for an expert to determine whether parental alienation has taken place: that is the judge’s function alone.

Erin said that with every birthday and Christmas that passes, the hope she will see her children before they are adults further diminishes.

“I have become a childless mother. There is nowhere that I can go to grieve,” she says. “It’s as if there was a sudden accident and they have died. I’m grieving the death of children who are still alive and there is no closure in sight.”

* Some names have been changed