Court of Appeal rules care orders remain valid despite challenge to psychologist’s expertise
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a mother’s challenge to care orders concerning her three children, ruling that the original decision of the Family Court should stand despite arguments that an expert psychologist had acted beyond the limits of his professional expertise.
In the case of H (Children: Expertise of Witness), the appeal was brought by the children’s mother against care orders made in March 2023 by the Family Court at Lincoln. The mother argued that the judge’s decision relied heavily on the evidence of a jointly instructed psychologist whose qualifications were later questioned.
The appeal was heard by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, together with Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Peter Jackson.
During the original proceedings, the court had instructed psychologist Graham Flatman to conduct a psychological assessment of the family. His report addressed the children’s psychological needs and assessed the mother’s parenting capacity and emotional functioning.
The challenge arose after separate proceedings before the Health and Care Professions Council found that Mr Flatman had acted outside the scope of his practice in an unrelated case involving a clinical psychological assessment and psychometric testing. The tribunal ultimately imposed a six-month suspension on him.
Relying on that outcome, the mother argued that Mr Flatman had similarly lacked the necessary qualifications to assess her in the care proceedings and that the judge’s reliance on his evidence amounted to a serious procedural irregularity.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected that argument.
The judges acknowledged that there had been some procedural shortcomings in the way the expert had been instructed, including the absence of a formal application under the relevant procedural rules and the fact that the parents had not been consulted about the identity of the expert before he was appointed.
Despite these issues, the court held that they did not amount to a serious procedural irregularity affecting the fairness of the proceedings.
The judges noted that Mr Flatman was a regulated practitioner psychologist registered as an educational psychologist and had extensive experience in family court work. The court also rejected the suggestion that an educational psychologist could never undertake the type of family assessment required in the case.
Crucially, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge’s decision had not depended solely on the expert’s evidence. The findings were supported by a range of other evidence, including testimony from social workers, an independent social worker, and the parents themselves.
The court concluded that the care orders were securely based on the overall evidence and that there had been no injustice in the proceedings.
In guidance for future cases, the court said that where concerns arise about an expert witness’s qualifications in children proceedings, the appropriate route will usually be an application to the Family Court rather than an appeal.
The mother’s appeal was therefore dismissed.