Taking a child away from his or her family because of the risk of abuse, is a life changing, often devastating issue. It's a decision taken by the family courts and it's often based on the testimony of expert witnesses. But an investigation for this programme has raised serious concerns, with new research suggesting that one in five expert witnesses are not even qualified. A staggering 90% are no longer practising in their field. In this special report, our social affairs editor Jackie Long asks can we trust the experts?
Keeping families together or tearing them apart? They are decisions taken every day in family courts up and down the country. But can the evidence given by experts in these courts, crucial to so many cases, always be trusted? After the death penalty, the most draconian act that the state can do, is remove a family’s children. So that's what's at stake.
A new home and a chance to rebuild her life. Catherine Simmons, not her real name, fought for custody of her children for five years, the court process criticised by the judge himself as an act of torture. For Catherine, it was a brutally painful experience, unnecessarily prolonged by a string of contradictory reports by psychologists and psychiatrists on her abilities as a parent. The court system in England is barbaric because it does not allow parents in family courts to be given a voice. It doesn't allow their children to be given a voice. But what it does instead is focuses on employing expert witnesses at huge expense.
Every year, thousands of families like Catherine and her children go through the family courts and the stakes are clearly enormous. The cases often rely heavily on testimony from experts such as psychologists and psychiatrists to find the best outcome for the children. In Catherine’s, there were eight different experts. The children were badly affected. My daughter, my oldest daughter in particular, had problems with bed wetting for a year when it all started and it was a very tough time. This mother is unusual in that she is willing to speak out albeit anonymously. The very nature of such cases means the family courts must protect the identity of the people involved. But that also means that the evidence given by mental health experts, central to many cases, is very often beyond scrutiny.
Channel 4 News has been investigating the quality of expert evidence given in family court cases, and the findings were a real cause for concern. Many families have told us that the experts simply aren't doing their job properly. And now, a unique piece of research, seen exclusively by Channel 4 News, confirms what many parents have told us about expert testimony in family cases.
The research for the Family Justice Council was done by Professor Jane Ireland, forensic psychologist and herself an expert witness. She gained unprecedented access to over 100 expert reports used in family court cases. She was shocked by what she found. 65% of reports that are rated as between poor and very poor. I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read, not just in terms of qualification, but also the quality of the reports that we read.
The research which focused on psychologists also found that over 20% of the experts weren’t even qualified. A third had no experience of mental health assessments. In 20% of reports the experts were found to be working beyond their area of knowledge and 90% were not even in current practise. I think the results from the research are enough suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing.
The concerns identified by Professor Ireland report’s are shared by lawyers we've spoken to. Nigel Priestley, a solicitor in Huddersfield, says he regularly deals with cases where parents feel the expert evidence is flawed. But it's the scale of the problem revealed by the new research which has surprised him.
If the statistics are the 20% are unqualified, that is not just a mess. That is staggering. Wrong. It should never happen. And certainly those who hold themselves out, should really be looking at their consciences because this is not just about making money this is about removing children very often or more importantly protecting children.
Analysing the expert reports, Professor Ireland found many areas of concern, including misdiagnoses, opinion represented as fact and assessments drawn up without ever seeing the individual. You should never be in a position where you diagnose somebody or make judgements on them if you haven’t seen them. It goes completely against code of conduct and ethics and it is impossible. You can't do a paper assessment on a human being. You have to meet that person, understand their interactions, build a raport and then take your judgement on the basis of that.
In January this well known psychologist Ruth Coppard, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the HPC regulator for psychologists for charges including making comments in relation to a court case on a father whom she had never formally assessed and on a child whom she had not assessed for two years. But few family court experts, it seems, face similar scrutiny.
So this psychiatrist ended up writing a 14 page report on me and my children without having ever seen us, without having ever tried to make contact with us. He's never seen us, he's never spoken to us. And yet he ended up writing 14 pages with recommendations that he could not possibly have made had he spoken to any of us, or had he had a read through the court papers.
The day after the psychiatrist signed off his report, he was suspended by the General Medical Council for a separate offence. Despite this, his report was still used by the courts. I'm very glad I persevered because there was a time when I was close to giving up and I was depressed myself. But I could not cope with seeing more experts, seeing more judges, having more court hearings and I'm very glad I never gave up. And the outcome now is a happy one.
At this specialist family court this judge is spearheading a new approach. The aim? Fewer experts and speedier resolutions. In a rare interview, he told Channel 4 News he does have concerns about the role played by expert witnesses. It would be wrong to say we don't need experts anymore. We do need them, but we've got to be much more focused about when we need them and for what we need them. Do you think this whole area of the use of expert witnesses, does need a review of some sort? Yes, I do. It is a very complex field. We're dealing with intensely human situations. We're dealing with whether or not this very small child can remain within its birth family for the rest of his or her life and we have to strike a balance.
Protecting the vulnerable is the ultimate aim of the family courts. Today, the government said it was committed to radical reform of the system, ensuring expert reports are only used when they're essential and, critically, that the quality of those experts whose assessments can tip the balance of a family's life forever should always be of the highest standard.
How competent are 'expert' witnesses called to court? video
Back to Issues with expert witnesses/testimony