New proposals for family courts in England and Wales may ban unregulated experts from proceedings involving children. This follows rising concerns from MPs and advocacy groups about court-appointed experts providing advice on essential decisions without sufficient qualifications. The focus has especially been on psychologists, some of whom have made controversial recommendations in cases of parental alienation. Current guidelines suggest these experts should be regulated, yet judges can still appoint unregulated ones. Recent investigations highlighted unethical practices, stressing the necessity for stricter regulations to safeguard children's best interests.
The proposal aims to eliminate unregulated experts from family courts in England and Wales, addressing concerns over their qualifications and influence on critical child welfare decisions.
Concerns have arisen regarding court-appointed experts, especially psychologists, who lack necessary qualifications yet advise on significant matters like child custody based on parental alienation.
An undercover investigation revealed serious ethical issues with unregulated experts, showcasing the case of Melanie Gill, whose recommendations led to the removal of children from their mothers.
Despite current guidelines recommending regulation, judges retain discretion to appoint unregulated experts, prompting calls for tighter control of the psychologist title to safeguard children's welfare.
Collection
[
|
...
]