The One Click Group

The One Click Group
Health Advocacy

RSS Feed Follow OneClickGroup on Twitter

Dr Iain Stephenson
Found Guilty of Vaccine
Research Fraud
The One Click Group

Mobilising ME/CFS Charities
To Smash Flawed
PACE Trial Results
Lara, Health Advocate

UK Public Health
In Dire Straits
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Lies Damned Lies
Swine Flu
Statistics Exposed
By Lara

Vaccination Graphs
The Awful Stats In Action
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

Issues In Immunization
Theory And Practice
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

March 2010

One Click
Of Information
UK Police Harassment
In The Internet Era

Barbara Loe Fisher
NVIC Conference
Style, Gonads
Brass Ovaries
By Jane Bryant

New Journalism
Status Quo
By Jane Bryant
NVIC Conference

How The
Judicial Review
NICE Guidelines
Was Lost
Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

Vaccines Propaganda
David Salisbury
Public Relations

David Southall
"A Very
Dangerous Doctor"
Panorama swims
with sharks
Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dr David Salisbury
Never Mind Me,
I'm Basil Fawlty!

David Salisbury
Vaccine Litigation

The Politics
And Commerce
Of Autism
By Lisa Blakemore Brown

Vaccine/Autism Case
Mitochondrial Disfunction
ME/CFS Patients

The Consensus Report
Family Law Reform

Canadian Definition of ME-CFS

The Weird World of Wikipedia
By Martin J. Walker

Click here to email us with any thoughts or opinions you wish to share about the website.


News Archives 5421-5440
Number Title Post Date
5421 Welfare reform bill passed, DWP phone calls begin 09/03/2012 20:00:45
5422 GPC seeks talks with DWP over Atos ‘fitness to work’ scheme concerns 09/03/2012 20:01:46
5423 Shocking Admission as DWP Claim They Don’t Know How Many on Workfare 09/03/2012 20:03:04
5424 New fraud probe into workfare firm A4e 09/03/2012 20:04:04
5425 Murdoch faces investigation over BSkyB ownership 09/03/2012 20:05:29
5426 Don't call a lawyer: call Tory Party cocaine fixer Coulson 09/03/2012 20:08:29
5427 Report on link between narcolepsy and vaccine 09/03/2012 20:12:10
5428 Are asthma inhalers linked to birth defects? Thousands of pregnant women at centre of inquiry into health problems in babies 12/03/2012 15:24:31
5429 The dirty war on WikiLeaks 12/03/2012 15:26:47
5430 New Dean of St Paul's defends #Occupy eviction 12/03/2012 15:29:09
5431 Why Can't You Smoke Pot? Because Lobbyists Are Getting Rich Off of the War on Drugs 12/03/2012 15:33:48
5432 What does the UK welfare reform agenda say about us as a society? 12/03/2012 15:37:18
5433 Thousands of changes made to Wikipedia from within House of Commons 12/03/2012 15:40:49
5434 Tory party cocaine fixer Coulson in fresh bid to appeal over legal fees 12/03/2012 15:43:02
5435 Leveson must publish the Motorman Files 12/03/2012 15:44:44
5436 Scandalous: Scientists and Doctors Falsifying Research Data 12/03/2012 15:45:35
5437 Open letter to DG, WHO - Pentavalent vaccine related deaths 12/03/2012 15:47:17
5438 Swine flu vaccine families mull joint Pandemrix lawsuit 12/03/2012 15:54:24
5439 Lockdown London: how the Olympics will turn London into (more of) a police state 13/03/2012 14:39:40
5440 20% of 'expert' family court witnesses are incompetent and unqualified 13/03/2012 14:42:38

[Previous] [Next]

20% of 'expert' family court witnesses are incompetent and unqualified
Share |

How competent are expert witnesses?

Tuesday 13 March 2012
Around 20 per cent of psychologists acting as expert witnesses for the family courts are not qualified, according to a Channel 4 News investigation broadcast tonight, writes producer Phil Carter.

The findings are based on research published on Wednesday for the Family Justice Council (FJC). It was led by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire.

Prof Ireland and her team were given unprecedented access to psychologists' expert witness reports from three undisclosed courts across England by the FJC, an arm's length body of the Ministry of Justice.

Experts play a critical role in family court cases: research suggests that at least one expert is used in 90 per cent of public law children's proceedings and many cases involve three or more experts.

The majority of these experts are psychiatrists and psychologists, employed to provide expert opinion on a range of matters in these cases, typically including questions as to whether parents have the ability to care for their children, display personality disorders or other psychological issues and whether any such diagnoses are treatable within a timescale suitable for the children involved.

Channel 4 News spoke to families across the country involved in court proceedings and heard time and again concerns about the experts used by the courts to determine whether children are at risk and should be removed from their birth parents.


But because of the secrecy of the family courts - designed to protect the identity of the children at the heart of proceedings - the experts used have largely been beyond scrutiny.

This research is the first time these concerns have been to some degree independently substantiated. The research found serious concerns across a range of issues beyond the startling finding that around a fifth of so-called psychologist expert witnesses are not qualified.

The assessments of the expert reports found that some 20 per cent of the psychologists were working beyond their area of knowledge; around a third had no experience of mental health assessments; and some 90 per cent of experts were not in current practice.

The net result was that the research concluded that around 65 per cent of expert reports in the study were of either 'poor' or 'very poor' quality.

Professor Ireland told Channel 4 News: "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 ..."


Nigel Priestley, a lawyer closely involved in family proceedings, told Channel 4 News of the gravity of the research's findings. "After the death penalty the most draconian act that the state can do is remove a family's child," he said. "What is at stake for many carers is the loss of their children and on the basis of a report which might or indeed might not be questionable."

He regularly deals with cases where parents feel the expert evidence is flawed. But it is the scale of the problem revealed by the new research which has surprised him.

He said: "If the statistics are that 20 per cent are unqualified that is not just a mess, that is staggering, wrong ... this is not just about making money, this is about removing children very often or, more importantly, protecting children ..."


One of the more surprising findings of the research was that some psychologists were recorded as assessing parents without ever meeting or seeing them.

Prof Ireland told Channel 4 News: "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 rapport and then take your judgement on the basis of that."

But Channel 4 News has learnt that this is not just a problem confined to psychologists. One mother who spoke on condition of anonymity recently left England after a private law family court case over custody of her children.

This case involved some eight expert witnesses. One, a psychiatrist, provided the court with an assessment of a potential change of residence for the children without meeting the mother or the children. The mother described the family court system and the repeated use of experts as barbaric.

The day after the psychiatrist completed the report on the mother he was suspended by the GMC for a separate offence. Yet, despite the concerns over assessing people without ever actually seeing them, it seems that courts are willing to accept such reports.

The research is the first of its kind and clearly has limitations, which the report itself acknowledges. The sample size was relatively small at 126 reports and the methodology to objectively quantify quality is likely to need further refinement.


But the range and scale of the problems identified suggest that this is unlikely to be explained solely by methodological shortcomings.

Intriguingly, the research also suggests that the problems may extend well beyond psychologists. Indeed, in the course of the investigation, Channel 4 News uncovered serious areas of concern with both psychiatrists and paediatricians as well as play therapists and others providing expert services to the family courts.

"I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing," said Professor Ireland.

UK Web Hosting by Tue, March 13th, 2012. 02:42 pm