New family court rules spark hope that the ‘days of bogus experts are over’

New rules barring unregulated psychologists from family court cases in England and Wales will come into force this month, sparking hope that the “days of bogus experts are over”.

The long-awaited change marks a victory for campaigners who have highlighted the dangers of using expert witnesses who are not registered with a regulator. Judges will, however, still be able to appoint them in exceptional circumstances, so the new rule-change stops short of an outright ban.

Psychological experts are used by the family courts to assess families and children – including in cases involving claims of domestic abuse, coercive control or child sexual abuse – and their evidence can have a huge influence over the proceedings.

They might recommend which parent a child should live with, or whether they should be placed in state care. This advice can be a key factor in the judge’s final decision.

Over the last three years we have reported extensively about the use of unregulated experts in family cases. In particular, the debate has focused on the psychologists who specialise in diagnosing parental alienation – a concept discredited as a “harmful pseudoscience”.

The advice of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, has led to removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers, including in cases where fathers had been found to be abusive.

One mother, known as Erin*, whose two children were removed from her care following Gill’s advice, told the Bureau: “Six years ago my determined goal was that no other family would ever have to endure the loss and devastation I experienced at the hands of an unregulated person posing as an expert in the family court.

“This rule-change should now protect children from unregulated individuals ruining lives. But the families already destroyed will carry the scars forever.”

A new era?

Part of the problem is that anyone can call themselves a “psychologist” – it’s not a protected title. According to Family Justice Council guidance, psychologists appointed by the courts should be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), but under the current rules it is ultimately up to the judge which experts are appointed.

The new changes to the Family Procedure Rules, which take effect on 20 July, will tighten this loophole but not close it completely. Unregulated experts can still be appointed when an issue can only be resolved with their particular expertise, or to avoid a delay that could harm a child’s welfare. In these cases, the judge will also have to explain what efforts were made to find a regulated expert.

Jaime Criag, chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK, told us that the new rules were “not perfect” but represented a huge step forward. “They give me real hope that the days of bogus experts are over,” he said.

The ACP-UK first issued a statement in 2021 raising concerns that “psychological experts” without the necessary qualifications were recommending the removal of children from their mothers.

Craig says the family courts should act in the spirit of the new rules. “We have for several years had guidance that says you shouldn’t use unregulated experts, and we have case law, but now there will be rules that must be followed. Hopefully no judge in the land would want to appoint an unregulated expert or exploit the exception to the rule.”

He added: “It’s hard to conceive why it would feel necessary to maintain a loophole for psychological experts. Poor-quality evidence from someone who is not sufficiently qualified to assess children and be properly regulated will never be in a child’s best interests.”

Family barrister Lucy Reed KC agreed that “even if there is a delay caused by finding or instructing a regulated expert, the answer is not going to be to instruct someone who is simply not suitable”.

Reed believes the new rules – which apply to all experts, not just psychologists – make it “practically impossible” to instruct the types of unregulated psychologists that have given cause for concern including in alleged alienation cases.

If someone wanted to instruct such an expert, she said, they will now have to “jump through a number of hoops and satisfy a judge who must give written reasons for permitting it”.

“Even in the past, unregulated experts should have been identified as unsuitable by lawyers and judges but proper scrutiny of CVs and credentials was not happening consistently. These rules demand the due diligence which should have been there but was sometimes lacking.”

The avoidance of an outright ban, she explained, will enable the court to use specialists in niche disciplines in the rare cases where there may be nobody else appropriate to advise.

Routes for redress

The ACP-UK argues that only accredited members of the HCPC should be given permission to assess a child or adult with the view to giving evidence. However, as Craig puts it, the rule change has “moved the goalposts” on the definition of regulation to include voluntary membership registers accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.

This means experts such as psychotherapists can be used by the family courts but with improved oversight. However, the registers are not statutory, which means members who are struck off can continue practising under the same title – unlike those who belong to the HCPC.

Crucially, the new rules cannot be used in retrospect to challenge previous decisions and will only apply to cases commencing after 20 July this year. This will prevent opening the floodgates to a barrage of appeals.

However, that does not rule out a route for redress for families who believe they have suffered an injustice at the hands of an unregulated expert.

Following a landmark judgment earlier this year known as Re Y, the former president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, threw his support behind a working group to devise a path through which such cases could be re-examined. Guidance on that from the Family Justice Council is due out this autumn.

The judgment Re Y came after McFarlane overturned a “fundamentally flawed” ruling that led to a mother being separated from her two children for nearly six years following the advice of Melanie Gill.

Erin said: “Domestic abuse was being dismissed in family courts by people like Gill, with alienation ‘experts’ forcing children into dangerous reunification therapy and, ironically, alienating them completely from their safe parent.

“We can never get back the six years the courts stole from my children and I, but if this rule-change stops that from happening again, perhaps it was worth something after all.”

“I hope that meaningful accountability for all the victims now follows. We are still waiting for a public apology.”

In Re Y McFarlane said family judges should no longer use unregulated experts. The new rules – first put out to public consultation in March 2025 – now strengthen this judicial guidance by making it part of the rules judges must apply every time they are asked to appoint an expert.