\n<\/p>\n
England\u2019s most senior family court judge has advised there is a \u201cneed for rigour\u201d and \u201cclarity\u201d when instructing psychologists to give expert evidence \u2013 but has stopped short of saying the family courts should never appoint those who are \u201cunregulated\u201d.<\/p>\n
Instead Sir Andrew McFarlane claims it is a matter for the psychological profession, and ultimately parliament, whether a \u201ctighter regime should be imposed\u201d on what he has described as a \u201cconfusing system\u201d.<\/p>\n
The president of the family division in England and Wales made the comments in a landmark judgment<\/a> published on Wednesday that confirms the generic label \u201cpsychologist\u201d is not protected and \u201ccan be used by anyone\u201d.<\/p>\n His conclusions follow intense debate and various guidance over the years about the the definition of a psychologist and who can use that term when assisting the court.<\/p>\n Psychologists can be appointed in cases where judges are making life-changing decisions about children such as placing them in care, transferring residence between parents in conflict or deciding where they should live after allegations of abuse<\/p>\n The judgment follows an appeal by a mother who was seeking a re-hearing of her case after her children were removed from her care. She claimed the jointly instructed expert on \u201cparental alienation\u201d who assessed her family was neither regulated nor appropriately qualified.<\/p>\n Judge Lindsay Davies ordered that the children should live with their father<\/a> \u2013 against their wishes \u2013 after accepting Melanie Gill\u2019s findings that the mother had \u201calienated\u201d them from him. She stressed that she also considered other evidence, including the mother\u2019s own evidence, before making the order.<\/p>\n The appeal was opposed by the father and the children\u2019s guardian but was supported by the Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP-UK) as an intervenor along with Gill.<\/p>\n Representing the professional body, Barbara Mills KC submitted that Gill\u2019s instruction was a \u201cstark and troubling example of an individual who holds herself out as an expert but has neither the qualifications nor the relevant skills so to hold\u201d.<\/p>\n Andrew Bagchi KC rejected the criticisms of Gill, claiming she was an expert and that the burden was not on her to prove her qualifications. He said she made clear at the outset what the scope of her work would entail.<\/p>\n Mills argued that, in the absence of regulation, the onus was on Gill to satisfy the court she was properly qualified.<\/p>\n But McFarlane rejected the appeal <\/a>during a public hearing in December. The judgment<\/a> lays out his reasons and addresses the wider issue of experts.<\/p>\n He wrote: \u201cFrom the perspective of the court, and it may be from a wider public perspective, the open-house nature of the term \u2018psychologist\u2019 is unhelpful and potentially confusing.<\/p>\n \u201cIn other fields, particularly medicine, the court is used to a stricter regulatory scheme in which an individual can only call themselves a professional title \u2026 if recognition of their expert status is confirmed and monitored through formal regulation and registration.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is, however, a matter for the psychological profession and, ultimately, parliament, whether a tighter regime should be imposed.\u201d<\/p>\n