Family courts: proposed new rules aim to stop evidence from ‘bogus experts’

The family courts have moved a step closer to banning unregulated experts, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) can reveal. The committee that sets the rules around family cases in England and Wales has proposed tighter restrictions in proceedings involving children.

The move comes in the wake of growing concerns from MPs and campaigners about court-appointed experts who advise on life-changing decisions without holding the necessary qualifications. But some organisations say the proposal, which is out for public consultation, does not go far enough.

Experts can be appointed by the court 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 experts being instructed to deliver psychological assessments and diagnoses they are not qualified to make.

Part of the issue is that anyone can call themselves a “psychologist” – it is not a protected title. And while current 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.

TBIJ’s Family Court Files series has highlighted the problematic role of experts seeking to diagnose “parental alienation” – a disputed concept that describes a child’s rejection of one parent because they have been manipulated by the other.

Earlier this year an undercover investigation by TBIJ and Tortoise Media exposed the controversial views of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, whose advice has been instrumental in the removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers.

However, the number is likely to be higher as Gill has, by her own estimate, given evidence in up to 200 such cases.

In December 2023 the president of the Family Division delivered a judgment following a mother’s appeal – which was dismissed – regarding the instruction of Gill, who had given evidence on “parental alienation”.

Sir Andrew McFarlane 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”.

Now the Family Procedure Rules Committee, a government-appointed body, has proposed changes to the rules regarding experts acting in family law children proceedings. The change would mean an expert must either be regulated by a UK statutory body – which for psychologists would be the HCPC – or on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority.

Professor Mike Wang, chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK, said the change would be a big step forward.

However, the proposal says 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, though the judge would have to give reasons for their decision.

Wang said: “I think the intentions are very good and I think 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.

“Ultimately 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 crucial issue is whether you are getting competent advice. There isn’t a public safety justification for the loophole.”

The proposed rules apply to all expert witnesses but the concerns have predominantly related to expert psychologists, who are often instructed to 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 legal advice charity Rights of Women agreed 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.

“We have asked the government to legislate and it has rejected our calls,” said charity’s legal adviser, Olive Craig. “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.