A and B (children: expert’s reports), Re
[2024] EWHC 948 (Fam)
Re GB (Part 25 Application: Parental Alienation)
30 August 2023
[2023] EWFC 150
Family Court
A judge ordered a psychologist to assess parents and kids in a custody case where the dad said the mom was turning the kids against him. A higher court said the first judge didn't explain why he ordered the assessment and shouldn't have let the psychologist decide if the mom was guilty. They cancelled the assessment and said a new judge should decide.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a District Judge's order permitting the instruction of an expert psychologist to conduct a global psychological assessment of parents and children.
- •Case involves two children (12 and 9 years old) and their parents ('AM' and 'RF').
- •Father alleges parental alienation by the mother.
- •Prior expert evidence existed, including a psychological assessment of the parents in April 2021.
- •Children's Guardian applied for the expert evidence, supported by the father, opposed by the mother.
- •The lower court did not provide reasons for its decision.
- •Appeal concerns the necessity of the expert evidence under Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and the appropriateness of the expert's role given Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam).
Legal Principles
An appellate court will allow an appeal if the lower court's decision was wrong or unjust due to a serious procedural irregularity.
Appellate courts should not interfere with a judge's discretion unless it's outside the generous ambit of discretion.
Parental alienation is not a diagnosable syndrome, but a question of fact for the court to resolve, focusing on alienating behaviours and their impact on the child's relationship with parents. Expert should not determine the factual matrix of disputed allegations.
Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)
Expert evidence is only permitted if 'necessary' to resolve proceedings justly under FPR 25.4(3) and section 13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014, demanding a higher threshold than merely 'assisting the court'.
FPR 25.4(3), section 13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014, Re H-L (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655
When deciding on expert evidence, the court must consider the impact on children's welfare, issues related to the evidence, questions for the expert, available evidence, cost, and timetable.
Section 13(7) of the Children and Families Act 2014
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The lower court failed to engage with the disputed issues, adjudicate on the necessity of expert evidence using relevant legal principles, and provide reasons for its decision. The court improperly delegated factual determination to the expert, particularly on the issue of parental alienation.
Order permitting expert evidence set aside.
The lack of reasons and procedural failings rendered the decision wrong.
Application for expert evidence remitted for further hearing.
The court will reconsider the necessity of expert evidence and focus on specific alienating behaviours and their impact on the children.