Questions over use of ‘psychological experts’ in parental alienation cases

A recent investigation by the Observer and reported by the Guardian is raising questions about the use of unregulated experts in the family courts being instructed to give an opinion on parental alienation cases.

In an interview with the Observer, Prof Mike Wang, chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK board of directors, said:

“The organisation is aware of unregulated experts making findings of so-called parental alienation (PA) and doing tremendous harm. I’ve seen children taken away by the force of the state on the basis of PA. But what the public needs to know is that there is an international consensus that the evidence-base on parental alienation is not sufficiently robust to be making decisions about child-contact arrangements.”

Not all of those who call themselves “PA experts” or who are involved in parental alienation cases are unregulated.

But Professor Wang said:

“What I take issue with is a cohort of experts who I believe are making excessive claims about their qualifications while operating under vague or spurious titles which are not protected and could be misleading about the level or breadth of their experience.”

To register with the HCPC, psychologists must be qualified to hold one of nine designated titles protected by law, such as forensic psychologist or clinical psychologist.

“My view is the family courts should only appoint regulated experts,” said Professor Wang, who is campaigning for legislation to have the title psychologist protected.

Joint guidelines by the Family Justice Council and the British Psychological Society state the courts should “expect that all psychologists based in the UK providing evidence in the family proceedings are regulated by the HCPC and/or … have chartered membership with the BPS”.

Simon Berney-Edwards, EWI Chief Executive Officer, said: “We welcome the ACP-UK’s campaign. We speak to members of the public involved in Family Proceedings on a surprisingly regular basis who cannot understand why the expert does not appear to be a member of the HCPC or BPS. They are also confounded by the fact that experts do not have to be a member of the Expert Witness Institute. Members of the public should be able to expect that anyone giving evidence in a case that they are involved in has the right qualifications, is regulated by the appropriate body, and has received appropriate training in the duties of an expert witness. With directories such as our own Find an Expert Directory where experts need to demonstrate they possess all these, there should be no reason for instructing parties or the courts to risk appointing an expert without the necessary requirements.”