A family court judge has accepted the recommendation of an unregulated expert and ruled that a child should be removed from her mother’s care after finding the mother made an “entirely false allegation” about the child’s father.
The woman will initially have only supervised contact with her daughter, who will be transferred to live with her father against the girl’s wishes. The decision follows findings about the mother’s “attitude” towards him and the adverse impact of that on the girl of secondary school age.
Three experts assessed the family including Karen Woodall, a psychotherapist who is not registered with any regulatory body and who the mother tried, unsuccessfully, to have removed from her case. Woodall suggested the mother should have only “very restricted supervised contact” with her daughter who would require ongoing therapy.
Her recommendation to transfer the child to her father’s care was supported by a regulated clinical psychologist, Hessel Willemsen.
In a position statement she prepared herself, the mother claimed Woodall’s recommendation was “punitive to the extreme” and the proposed transfer of residency was “motivated by money”.
But the psychotherapist told the court she had already been considering that a change was needed for the girl and her recommendation followed “serious safeguarding concerns”.
After attending the proceedings in October, the Observer and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism were subsequently given permission to report on the case.
Giving judgment, Mr Justice Keehan said he found the mother “made an entirely false allegation” after alluding to the father having a sexual interest in his daughter.
He also criticised the child’s guardian, who advised there should be a “50/50” shared living arrangement between the parents. Keehan said her analysis had been “woeful” and he would put her evidence to one side.
The judge said he had “no doubt” in accepting Woodall’s advice that there needed to be “a fundamental shift” in the living arrangements for the girl referred to as A.
All three experts agreed on the family dynamics but differed in their welfare recommendations. Clinical psychologists Alison Conning and Willemsen agreed the mother had caused her child psychological harm due to her “negative view of the father”.
While Conning agreed with the guardian about a 50/50 split, Willemsen aligned with Woodall’s more robust approach.
There has been much debate in recent years about the use of court-appointed experts who give psychological evidence and are not registered with any regulatory body. MPs have raised concerns about the use of unregulated experts.
Family Justice Council guidance says courts should expect all UK-based practitioner psychologists providing evidence in family proceedings to be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council.
Woodall was appointed in November 2021 to “carry out clinical therapeutic assessment and make welfare recommendations”, according to the father’s position statement.
Janet Bazley KC, for the father, wrote: “[The mother] … raises allegations against both Ms Woodall and Dr Willemsen. She accuses the court of bias.” She added: “There has been a long history of the mother putting obstacles in the way of [A’s] relationship with her father.”
The father has been represented throughout the case, while the mother – until the last hearing where she was assisted by a McKenzie friend, a non-professional helper – has been a litigant in person.
At a 15 May meeting, Conning, Woodall and the child’s guardian agreed the girl should remain living with her mother. However, in a 14 August report, Woodall claimed the child’s welfare required the immediate removal from her mother’s influence.
Central to the questioning of the experts were allegations raised by the daughter at a meeting with Woodall on 25 May. She complained her father walked around the house in a state of undress and stared at her while she was changing.
after newsletter promotion
Woodall and Willemsen each said the mother had inferred or alluded to the father having a sexual interest in the girl during separate meetings. But both confirmed they had not asked the mother explicitly if she believed he posed a “sexual risk”.
During cross examination Bazley said Willemsen had been in “no doubt” her clear intention was to suggest the father had a sexual interest in A. The mother insisted: “That was absolutely not my intention …” She said it was Woodall who raised the matter as a “safeguarding concern”on 13 October.
Giving evidence, the child’s guardian said the mother told her categorically, on 18 October, she did not believe the father posed a sexual risk but rather there was an issue “around boundaries”.
The guardian was “extraordinarily naive” to accept the mother had abandoned her allegations, said Bazley.
Representing the children’s guardian, Laura Bayley told the court there had been no criticism of the guardian up until she diverted from Woodall’s recommendation.
The McKenzie friend said Woodall changed her position about where the child should live “almost instantly” after the mother raised a number of issues with Woodall’s “credentials and regulation”.
But Woodall said she had already held concerns in July about the girl’s “contemptuous behaviour” and that events “going on behind the scenes” were sufficiently concerning for her to shift her position.
The McKenzie Friend said “there will be grief, loss and considerable mourning” if the girl is separated from her mother.
Giving judgment Keehan said, despite the obstacles the girl had previously enjoyed regular contact with her father. He underscored that Woodall is “not a psychologist” but describes herself as a psychotherapist and accepts she has no regulatory body. He said in other cases he had “found the assistance of Ms Woodall to be extremely helpful, positive and beneficial”. The father had been “a very balanced and measured witness”, said Keehan.
But he said he would have to approach the mother’s evidence with “extreme caution” because she alluded to the father having a sexual interest in A. That she was simply repeating safeguarding concerns of Woodall was “at worst a bare-faced lie”, he said.
Keehan ordered a transfer of residence to the father and four supervised contact sessions with the mother, at her cost. He said the success of those sessions would determine a move to unsupervised contact including regular overnight contact.
The father should instruct and fund Woodall to “oversee a further programme of therapeutic work for A as advised by her” according to Keehan’s order.
