‘Really terrifying’: undercover calls expose the views of influential court expert

A senior psychologist who helped write key guidance for the family courts has described some of the views expressed by Melanie Gill, an expert who has been involved in hundreds of cases, as “dangerous” and “terrifying”.

Gill had been speaking to an undercover reporter posing as “Charlie”, a father concerned about losing access to his children following a breakdown in his relationship with their mother. He contacted Gill and other expert psychologists who specialise in the controversial concept of parental alienation – a child’s supposed rejection of one parent after being manipulated by the other.

Despite having very little information about the family’s situation, Gill implied Charlie’s ex-partner had turned their children against him and may have made false allegations to the police. She suggests the authorities have been taken in by “radical feminism”, which exaggerates the existence of domestic abuse against women.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and Tortoise Media played a recording of the calls to Jaime Craig, a consultant clinical psychologist and one of the authors of guidance for the use of psychologists as expert witnesses in family courts in England and Wales.

Craig, who is also director of policy at the Association of Clinical Psychologists, said: “I’m deeply concerned that someone who has such demonstrable bias is then presenting themselves as someone who can give independent expert witness evidence as a psychologist in the family courts.

“This is someone who has a completely narrow agenda-driven assessment process, which is all about assuming there’s no such thing as domestic abuse.”

Over many years as a court-appointed expert, Gill’s evidence has informed decisions to remove at least a dozen children from the care of their mothers. When instructed by the court, she is bound by a duty to provide fair and accurate evidence and independent opinion.

In a statement provided after being told of the undercover calls, Gill said our interpretation of her comments was “distorted”, 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.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “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.”

‘Peddling a myth’

During calls with Gill, Charlie described an incident where the police were called to his home after he punched a wall and trapped his ex-partner’s arm – he said by accident – in a door during an argument.

Despite Charlie saying his children may be scared about spending time with him, Gill made little attempt to examine his version of events.

Instead, her assumption appeared to be that the mother had turned her children against Charlie – that, in effect, she was subjecting them to parental alienation.

Gill told Charlie that “false allegations” are “massive” in the sort of situation he was describing, suggesting that his partner may have lied about what had happened.

Craig said Gill had demonstrated her own biases and shown “absolutely no kind of neutral curiosity about what had happened when the police were called”.

“She’s peddling a great myth,” said Craig, “which is that false allegations are proof of alienation.”

Guidance published in December on how judges should respond to allegations of parental alienation state that false or unproven allegations of domestic abuse will not constitute alienating behaviour unless there is evidence the child has been manipulated.

Later in the call, Gill described to Charlie the services she can provide in relation to his concerns. “I can advise one side, I can assess one side. I can assess the children,” she explained.

Craig said this is misleading. “Nowhere in the family courts do we ever have someone on one ‘side’. They’re jointly appointed experts.

‘Feminists didn’t like that’

Gill then told Charlie that, as well as understanding “what’s going on in your child’s mind”, they also needed to know “is there something going on in your ex’s mind?”

“Does your ex think, ‘He’s a very angry person’? Which is very common … and that builds and builds and builds, and children pick up on that.

“We’re in an unfortunate position now where the feminist perspective on men and domestic conflict is so biased … which is why I was witch-hunted because I’ve been working on these cases and getting to the bottom of what goes on in families. Feminists didn’t like that because at the end of the day they said I was against women.

“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.”

Shocked by what he had heard, Craig said: “[She’s] suggesting that domestic abuse is getting more and more equal. There’s just no way of saying that with any kind of evidence. My goodness.

“Yes, men are victims of domestic abuse, of course they are. But it’s universally gendered and disproportionately affects women and girls. That is such a dangerous message.”

Gill told Charlie he had a “moral right” to see his daughters and implied children can suffer “brain damage” if they do not have access to both parents.

“It’s such a skewed conversation,” said Craig. “It’s very seductive. If you’re a man looking for help you would feel so enamoured by this person.

“[She] is making claims about brains that she’s got no qualifications to make, that have no basis in any scientific literature. It’s just nonsense.”

Conflict of interest

Gill also suggested to Charlie he should run the names of legal firms he intends to contact by her so she can tell him whether “they’re the ones infected by feminist ideology”. In the second call she went on to recommend a named lawyer.

Craig said: “The idea that an expert witness would tell you whether or not a firm of solicitors are a good or a bad firm based on their bias or how they are around feminism and how they view domestic abuse is really dangerous.

“For someone who works as an expert witness to be suggesting a particular lawyer means they are telling them about a bias in that lawyer, or that they’ve experienced them as good at winning their kind of case. It’s a massive conflict [of interest].”

Gill also explained it was unlikely she would be appointed as an expert should Charlie’s case go to court due to the negative media attention she has received.

“What happens sometimes is people will go for me,” she said. “They’ll go, ‘No, we can’t have her because she’s been in the newspapers. She’s wicked and evil, blah, blah, blah.’

“So they will choose someone else who will come in and do a really shit job. There is a great chance of bias because social workers and Cafcass [the organisation that represents children’s interests during family court proceedings] people, unless they’re very experienced, are pulled into the alienator’s distorted thinking.

“What we’re getting is this cohort of judges who are coming in who haven’t got a bloody clue and who don’t understand parental alienation.

“In this last parental alienation case the judge was completely and utterly biased. Those female judges … completely and utterly biased. What they’re all concentrating on is domestic violence against women because the narrative spun internationally by radical feminism is the patriarchy, toxic masculinity. Look at our government – that’s what they’re pushing as well: all men are violent, all women are victims.”

‘Everybody suffers’

Charlie told Gill he was worried about the police report of the incident at his home. Gill suggested his partner’s allegations of domestic violence – allegations Charlie had not mentioned – could end being reinforced by the authorities.

“Police will refer the parent to one of the domestic violence charities, which are hopelessly biased,” she said.

“Their form of assessment is not validated in any way, shape or form. They will validate that person’s feelings, make them far more concrete, and then everybody suffers.”

Craig described Gill’s views on domestic violence as “very concerning”.

He said: “For someone who’s meant to work as an independent expert witness to express a view that police being called for potential domestic abuse plays into a dangerous feminist argument that’s used against men is really terrifying.

“It’s so clear she’s on a vendetta, she’s on this agenda: it’s always alienation, always ignore the domestic abuse allegation. It’s actually refreshing to see such clarity from her because she’s pretended to be a jointly appointed, neutral expert and it’s obvious that she’s not.”

He added: “She’s approaching it from one side, which is that feminists try and keep dads away from their children, feminists have taken over the court and [she’s speaking up] on behalf of these poor victim dads whose children have been brain damaged by their mothers.

“It would be funny if it weren’t so scary.”