A family court judge accepted the recommendation of an unregulated expert and ruled that a child should be removed from her mother’s care after finding the mother had made a “completely false allegation” about the child’s father.
The woman will initially only have 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 its adverse impact 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 unsuccessfully tried to remove the mother from her case. Woodall suggested that the mother should only have “very limited supervised contact” with her daughter who needs 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 in the extreme” and the proposed transfer of residence was “motivated by money”.
But the psychotherapist told the court she had already considered that a change was needed for the girl and her recommendation followed “serious concerns”.
After attending the proceedings in October, the Observer and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism was subsequently given permission to report on the matter.
Ruling, Judge Keehan said he found the mother had “made a completely false allegation” after suggesting the father had a sexual interest in his daughter.
He also criticized the child’s guardian, who advised there should be a “50/50” shared living arrangement between the parents. Keehan said her analysis was “sad” and he would set aside her evidence.
The judge said he had “no doubt” in accepting Woodall’s advice that there should 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. The clinical psychologists Alison Conning and Willemsen agreed that the mother had caused psychological harm to her child due to her “negative view of the father”.
While Conning agreed with the guardian on a 50/50 split, Willemsen aligned with Woodall’s more robust approach.
There was much debate in recent years on 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 Law Council’s guidance says courts should expect all UK-based practicing psychologists giving evidence in family proceedings to be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council.
Woodall was appointed in November 2021 to “conduct clinical therapeutic assessment and make welfare recommendations”, according to the father’s position statement.
Janet Bazley KC, for the father, wrote: “[The mother] … make allegations against both Ms Woodall and Dr Willemsen. She accuses the court of partiality.” She added: “There was a long history of the mother putting obstacles in the way of [A’s] relationship with her father.”
The father was represented throughout the case, while the mother – until the last trial where she was assisted by a McKenzie friend, a non-professional helper – was a litigant in person.
At a May 15 meeting, Conning, Woodall and the child’s guardian agreed that the girl should stay with her mother. However, Woodall claimed in an August 14 report that the child’s welfare required the immediate removal of her mother’s influence.
Central to the questioning of the experts were allegations raised by the daughter during a meeting with Woodall on 25 May. She complained that her father walked around the house in a state of undress and stared at her while she was dressing.
to newsletter promotion
Woodall and Willemsen each said the mother inferred or hinted during separate meetings that the father had a sexual interest in the girl. But both confirmed they did not specifically ask the mother whether she believed he posed a “sexual risk”.
During cross-examination, Bazley said Willemsen was “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 that was Woodall who raised the matter on October 13 as a “security issue”.
Giving evidence, the child’s guardian said the mother categorically told her on October 18 that she did not believe the father posed a sexual risk, but rather there was an issue “about boundaries”.
The guardian was “extremely naive” to accept the mother dropped her allegations, Bazley said.
Laura Bayley, representing the children’s guardian, told the court there was no criticism of the guardian until she deviated from Woodall’s recommendation.
The McKenzie friend said Woodall changed her position on where the child should live “almost immediately” after the mother raised a number of issues with Woodall’s “credentials and regulation”.
But Woodall said she already had concerns about the girl’s “contemptuous behavior” in July and that events “going on behind the scenes” were worrying enough for her to change her position.
The McKenzie Friend said “there will be grief, loss and significant mourning” if the girl is separated from her mother.
Keehan said, despite the obstacles, the girl previously enjoyed regular contact with her father. He emphasized that Woodall was “not a psychologist” but described herself as a psychotherapist and accepted that she had no regulatory body. He said that in other cases he found Ms Woodall’s help to be extremely helpful, positive and beneficial. The father was “a very balanced and measured witness”, Keehan said.
But he said he would have to approach the mother’s evidence with “extreme caution” because she had hinted that the father had a sexual interest in A. That she was merely repeating to shield concerns from Woodall was “at worst a bare-faced lie”. said.
Keehan ordered a transfer of residence to the father and four supervised contact sessions with the mother at her expense. He said the success of those sessions would determine a move to unsupervised contact, including regular overnight contact.
The father must instruct and fund Woodall to “supervise a further program of therapeutic work for A as advised by her” according to Keehan’s order.
