Family court decision removing child from primary carer

[Watermelonbathbomb]

I just saw this in the Guardian and was quite shocked: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2023/dec/16/uk-court-removes-daughter-from-care-of-mother-who-disputed-use-of-expert. From the write-up, it seems to me that the decision is massively unfair. I was also surprised to read, on googling the expert, that they have been sanctioned for malpractice in the past. Having know women who have struggled tremendously during custody battles and having thought I might have to go there myself, it resonated. Was wondering if anyone else had seen it and their thoughts? Thanks.

The article states that the mother made false accusations alluding to sexual abuse. Sounds like parental alienation from the mother and the Judge found the child had suffered significant psychological harm.

I worked in this field for a number of years, family court papers are not available to view by anyone other than those involved in the case but it will have gone on for years and there will have been a large number of assessments undertaken.

Please don't worry if you find yourself in the process, 99% of the time it is fairly straightforward and the status quo is continued regarding the resident parent

It just says that the mother "inferred or alluded to" a sexual interest when speaking to two experts, who failed to clarify what she meant, and also that the mother denied making the allegation. In this slightly more detailed report it was found the father had inappropriately, from time to time “vented his frustrations at the conduct of the mother by denigrating her in the presence of A” and had shown “a lack of awareness of appropriate boundaries between him and [his daughter]”. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-12-16/family-court-files-child-removed-from-mother-after-punitive-recommendation

It stated the same in the second article that the mother was found to have made an entirely false accusation against the father. It also says 3 experts were called, 2 of which were clinical psychologists who agreed the mother had caused the child psychological harm :(

They will have done assessments on the child which won't be available for public viewing (understandably) which is why the Judge will have made the decision they did

There’s clearly a lot more to it than that article. I imagine most of the story couldn’t be published to protect the child.

Sounds like the right decision was made.

I realise that we don't have all the information. However from the reporting it would appear that the mother did not allege, but merely was reported by the experts to allude to or imply, which the judge took to be an allegation, although she expressly said it was not, and the experts did not sufficiently question her as to her intended meaning. I work in a different area of law, regularly looking at judicial decisions, and have a healthy scepticism of what it means to be an "expert" and very aware of the extent to which judges can get things wrong. It is impossible to know from the limited information we have here (and might also be based on the information available to the court) what the true story is, but there does seem to be an inequality of arms in terms of access to legal representation between the mother and the father, and I is quite easy to imagine that the mother's words and justifiable concerns have been distorted and used against her - in any case, to suddenly switch primary caregiver, against the wishes of the (older) child, allowing only conditional, supervised access to the primary caregiver, seems unbelievably harsh based on the facts that are published.

The whole thing seems really odd from the article. I wonder how it's going to play out when it seems the father has crossed boundaries and the child doesn't want to live with him anyway.

I don't know what the right outcome is, but this sounds like it's going to cause the child more distress.

At least, being a teenager, they'll have agency sooner than later.

Sorry, just reread and it doesn't say the child is a teenager, just at secondary school.

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.

Did they disregard this, or think the girl had been coached by her mother? The mother only seems to have brought up lack of boundaries and someone has moved that into an accusation of sexual behaviour.

The result does seem extremely punitive towards the mother, who has to pay for four supervised contact sessions.

If you read it there were three psychological experts who all expressed concern about mother although one differed as to the best solution

Wow. What about the psychological impact of the child moving home and primary caregiver against her will?

The mother mentally abused her child. She was telling her she had been sexually abused by her dad. Of course they were right to place her elsewhere.

I read this too this morning and agree with you OP. The way it's reported does make it sound very unreasonable and rather glossed over that it was the daughter who reported the father had stared at her while she was undressing and it made her feel uncomfortable.

I can't conceive how an unregulated "professional" can be an expert witness, particularly one who's previously been sanctioned for malpractice! I do know of a case personally where the judge agreed evidence provided by an expert witness had grounds to be challenged, but it was deemed not in the child's interest to delay adoption proceedings and uproot the child again. Desperately sad outcome all round and one the mother never recovered from.

The pressure on all those involved must be immense. I couldn’t face making those kind of decisions on a daily basis. The consequences of getting it wrong are so serious.

It's not helped by the timescales involved, delays to proceedings and the time it takes for assessments and reports etc and for everything to go back to court again - all way too drawn out and not in the child's interests at all.

@beautiful3 Nowhere is it stated the mother told the daughter she had been sexually abused by her father. In fact, the mother said that the disputed expert had not spent any time observing her with her child. Also worth noting that this expert had previously worked together with another of the experts. And that the child's guardian's opinion was seemingly dismissed by the judge.

The newspaper isn't going to tell you everything. Most sensitive parts are sealed from the public. The court would have done a thorough job, and the outcome would be appropriate. The girl is in a safe space, not in harms way. Social workers spend a long time working with the family, because they want them to stay, as long as there's no abuse.

It does make you wonder why bother granting permission for it to be reported it at all then.

I do accept that decisions have to be made on the available evidence at the time, but sadly the long term effects of these decisions are rarely revisited or kept track of, other than for specific pieces of research. So the learning never really happens for the individuals involved, particularly the children who are affected most. The role and impact of the system or those applying it, even to the best of their abilities, can and does afflict harm. It too rapidly becomes a matter of fault and blame laying on the parties involved.

A similar "professional" asked me what did I think the worst that could happen was, if dad hit the child during contact. She asked me outright if I thought it was possible he could kill the child. I said he wouldn't intend to, but in a fit of rage, if he pushed the child and they hit their head, or even like the well documented "one punch" deaths.

She didn't describe her line of questioning in the report, simply made a statement that mother has made allegations that father will try to kill the child if he has contact.

No one being paid thousands via the courts are going to go against the court. They are just going to "prove" what they want them to.

Theres a lot here to be unpicked, but I don't believe for a second that the best thing for a child is to be immediately removed from her primary caregiver(unless they're a danger of course) with only supervised contact and have to continue therapy with one of the people that "made" this happen.

This does not surprise me in the slightest. People who've never had family involved in family court settings automatically trust the experts but those of us who have seen family involved (or have themselves) know better.

But you would have had the right to also submit your position statement and would have mentioned your concerns of father's temper? Your advocate (solicitor/barrister) would have gone through the statements with the other experts in the advocates meeting and pre hearing discussions on the day?

I was self rep by this point. My position statement had already been dismissed as lies because I had no proof. I'd already been told that I had to stop talking about the father's violence and move on. By me making this so called "allegation", I was breaking court orders.

My point is, until you've been there, you have no idea how frustratingly biased it is.

Previous posters have great faith in the thoroughness and unbiased nature of the court process. When I began work in the field I thoroughly shared this view. By the time I retired, I no longer did. Judges (often really great, truly wise, sometimes arrogant and misguided), experts ditto, guardians and social workers frequently hardworking, meticulous and conscientious and sometimes, increasingly, slapdash, barely literate and lazy, are all human and decisions are frequently flawed.
I used to believe that the family courts delivered compassionate justice but now believe that if justice is delivered it’s random. I hate to say it.
I have no idea what to make of the case as there’s really insufficient detail given, other than that it’s worth looking at critical views of “parental alienation “ and how the concept has been used in the court setting to discredit the words of (usually) mothers.

Exactly that.

As soon as they dragged up the words parental alienation, I knew it was over.

Not that the children remember me being hit and thrown around, not that they remember being hit and that they were still being hit during contact. Nope. The mother made them say it to make them hate their dad.

It's all down the parental alienation by the mother. Nothing to do with the father's behaviour...