A and B (children: expert’s reports), Re
[2024] EWHC 948 (Fam)
Re C (‘Parental Alienation’; Instruction of Expert)
21 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)
High Court
A mom appealed a court decision about her kids. The court said the expert psychologist used was fine, even though there were questions about qualifications. The court also said the mom had been unreasonable in her multiple appeals and didn't need to keep relitigating the case. The mom lost all her appeals.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against an order refusing permission to reopen findings of fact in private law children proceedings.
- •Central issue: Instruction of experts in parental alienation cases, specifically the qualification of an expert psychologist, Ms A.
- •Ms A's report concluded the children were alienated against their father by their mother.
- •Judge's decision was based on Ms A's evidence, the guardian's analysis, and the judge's own evaluation of parental evidence.
- •Mother's appeal argued the judge erred by not considering expert evidence on Ms A's qualifications.
- •Mother's appeal was supported by the Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP), who argued Ms A lacked necessary qualifications.
- •The court considered guidance on expert evidence, including a President's Memorandum and guidance from the FJC/BPS and ACP.
- •The court dismissed the appeal.
- •The court also dismissed appeals against a s. 91(14) order and a costs order.
Legal Principles
Application to reopen findings of fact requires balancing finality of litigation with soundly-based welfare decisions. The court must consider resource use, delay's effect on the child, establishing the truth, significance of findings, quality of new evidence, and likelihood of a different finding on rehearing.
Re E [2019] EWCA Civ 1447
Expert evidence is permitted only if necessary to resolve proceedings justly.
Children and Families Act 2014, s 13(6)
The question of whether an expert is qualified to give expert evidence is a matter for the court in each case.
Civil Evidence Act 1972, s 3
Section 91(14) orders may be made to protect a child from endless unproductive applications; exceptional circumstances are not required.
Re A (A Child: Supervised Contact) [2021] EWCA 1749
A court may consider costs orders if a party's conduct is unreasonable.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found no bright-line rule prohibiting Ms A's instruction, and deemed it inappropriate to assess her qualifications via counsel submissions alone. The judge's original findings were thorough and well-reasoned.
Appeal against s. 91(14) order dismissed.
The judge properly considered the children's need for stability and the history of unmeritorious applications. The order was deemed proportionate.
Appeal against costs order dismissed.
The mother's pursuit of the reopening application was unreasonable given its lack of merit and the previous dismissal of a similar appeal.