Re GB (Part 25 Application: Parental Alienation)
[2023] EWFC 150
A and B (children: expert’s reports), Re
24 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 948 (Fam)
High Court
A judge ordered a psychologist to assess a family to help decide how much time kids should spend with their dad. A higher court overturned the decision because the judge didn't give good enough reasons why the psychologist was needed, especially since there was no evidence of the mum harming the kids' relationship with their dad.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against HHJ McPhee's order appointing a psychologist for a family assessment of two children (A, 11, and B, 7).
- •Order made under Part 25 of the Family Proceedings Rules 2010.
- •Father applied for the assessment; mother opposed it.
- •Children's guardian supported the order but with reservations.
- •Long-running private law Children Act proceedings concerning arrangements for children seeing their father.
- •Children are not currently seeing their father.
- •Judge's previous rejection of a similar application by the guardian.
- •Numerous attempts to facilitate contact between father and children had failed.
- •Mother argued that the children had seen too many professionals.
- •Mother did not want to participate in the assessment.
- •Dr. Hardiman's expertise in high-conflict post-separation parenting and parental alienation.
- •Judge's concern about abrogating responsibility by only assessing adults initially.
- •Judge's prior finding that the mother was not engaging in alienating behaviour.
Legal Principles
Expert evidence is only admissible if necessary to resolve proceedings justly.
s.13 of the Children and Families Act 2014
The court must consider the impact on children's welfare, the issues, questions, available evidence, cost, and timetable.
s.13(7) of the Children and Families Act 2014
Parental alienation is not a diagnosable syndrome but a process of manipulation; the court should focus on specific behaviour and its impact.
Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of an expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)
Case management decisions are not lightly interfered with; a high threshold must be crossed to overturn them.
Re AV (A Child) (Expert Report) [2020] EWCA Civ 346
Expert evidence must be necessary (not merely reasonable or desirable). Pseudo-science is inadmissible.
President’s Memorandum: Experts in the Family Court (11 October 2021)
Outcomes
Mother's appeal allowed; the order appointing Dr. Hardiman was set aside.
The judge failed to identify a proper basis for the appointment as necessary to resolve the proceedings justly. His reasons were insufficient and did not address previous findings and the lack of evidence of parental alienation.