header-logo header-logo

05 May 2023 / Sarah Keily
Issue: 8023 / Categories: Features , Family , Procedure & practice , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Unregulated experts & the need for clarity

With the courts confirming there is no way to define an ‘expert’ in family proceedings, Sarah Keily stresses the need for caution until change is effected
  • It is ultimately the decision of the court in each case to determine if a person is an expert.
  • Practitioners should exercise caution if an unregulated expert is proposed.
  • HCPC registration is the ‘kitemark’ of qualification.
  • Parental alienation is not a syndrome—it is a process of alienating behaviours and fundamentally a question of fact.

The president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, recently gave judgment in the case of Re C (‘parental alienation’; instruction of expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), [2023] All ER (D) 69 (Feb). The judgment provides guidance to family law practitioners about the instruction of unregulated experts, in particular in cases where parental alienation is alleged.

Background

These long-running proceedings relate to the arrangements for two children, now aged 11 and 13, where contact with their father had broken down and the father alleged

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll