BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA: (Link Below): "Parental alienation is a theorized process through which a child becomes estranged from one parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent.[1][2] The child's estrangement may manifest itself as fear, disrespect or hostility toward the distant parent, and may extend to additional relatives or parties.[3][4] The child's estrangement is disproportionate to any acts or conduct attributable to the alienated parent.[5] Parental alienation can occur in any family unit, but is claimed to occur most often within the context of family separation, particularly when legal proceedings are involved,[6] although the participation of professionals such as lawyers, judges and psychologists may also contribute to conflict.[7]..............................Parental alienation remains controversial both within the psychological community and the legal system. The psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition.[16] Critics note that alienating behaviors are common in high-conflict family situations such as child custody proceedings,[17] but that the estrangement of a child from a parent remains rare.[18] They assert that the research performed to date does not support the theory that parental alienation results in the harm described by proponents of the concept.[19] They also express concern that a parent who has caused a child to become estranged, for example through acts of domestic violence or child abuse, may claim to be the victim of parental alienation to convince a court that the child's justified response to the abuse is the result of the other parent's misconduct and to potentially gain custody of the child.[20] No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable.[19][21] No program of treatment has been demonstrated to be safe or valid,[22] and proponents of parental alienation theory agree that more research into treatment is necessary.[23]
---------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
GIST" New rules barring unregulated psychologists from family court cases in England and Wales will come into force this month, sparking hope that the “days of bogus experts are over”.
The long-awaited change marks a victory for campaigners who have highlighted the dangers of using expert witnesses who are not registered with a regulator. Judges will, however, still be able to appoint them in exceptional circumstances, so the new rule-change stops short of an outright ban.
Psychological experts are used by the family courts to assess families and children – including in cases involving claims of domestic abuse, coercive control or child sexual abuse – and their evidence can have a huge influence over the proceedings.
They might recommend which parent a child should live with, or whether they should be placed in state care. This advice can be a key factor in the judge’s final decision.
The advice of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, has led to removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers, including in cases where fathers had been found to be abusive.
One mother, known as Erin*, whose two children were removed from her carefollowing Gill’s advice, told the Bureau: “Six years ago my determined goal was that no other family would ever have to endure the loss and devastation I experienced at the hands of an unregulated person posing as an expert in the family court.
“This rule-change should now protect children from unregulated individuals ruining lives. But the families already destroyed will carry the scars forever.”
A new era?
Part of the problem is that anyone can call themselves a “psychologist” – it’s not a protected title. According to Family Justice Council guidance, psychologists appointed by the courts should be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), but under the current rules it is ultimately up to the judge which experts are appointed.
The new changes to the Family Procedure Rules, which take effect on 20 July, will tighten this loophole but not close it completely.
Jaime Craig, chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK, told us that the new rules were “not perfect” but represented a huge step forward. “They give me real hope that the days of bogus experts are over,” he said.
The ACP-UK first issued a statement in 2021 raising concerns that “psychological experts” without the necessary qualifications were recommending the removal of children from their mothers.
Craig says the family courts should act in the spirit of the new rules. “We have for several years had guidance that says you shouldn’t use unregulated experts, and we have case law, but now there will be rules that must be followed. Hopefully no judge in the land would want to appoint an unregulated expert or exploit the exception to the rule.”
He added: “It’s hard to conceive why it would feel necessary to maintain a loophole for psychological experts. Poor-quality evidence from someone who is not sufficiently qualified to assess children and be properly regulated will never be in a child’s best interests.”
Family barrister Lucy Reed KC agreed that “even if there is a delay caused by finding or instructing a regulated expert, the answer is not going to be to instruct someone who is simply not suitable”.
Reed believes the new rules – which apply to all experts, not just psychologists – make it “practically impossible” to instruct the types of unregulated psychologists that have given cause for concern including in alleged alienation cases.
If someone wanted to instruct such an expert, she said, they will now have to “jump through a number of hoops and satisfy a judge who must give written reasons for permitting it”.
“Even in the past, unregulated experts should have been identified as unsuitable by lawyers and judges but proper scrutiny of CVs and credentials was not happening consistently. These rules demand the due diligence which should have been there but was sometimes lacking.”
The avoidance of an outright ban, she explained, will enable the court to use specialists in niche disciplines in the rare cases where there may be nobody else appropriate to advise.""
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;
