Woman who lost custody of children has expert’s evidence overturned

[IwantToRetire]

A mother has won a landmark legal battle to overturn the evidence of an unregulated psychologist that resulted in her losing custody of her daughters.

For the last five years, Sarah* has only been allowed to see her children under strict supervision once a fortnight after Melanie Gill told a family court judge she was a “narcissist” who had alienated her kids from their father.

As a result, the judge ordered that the girls should live with their dad – a decision made against the advice of a social worker and despite allegations by the children that he had mistreated them.
The success of the case to disregard the evidence – which was supported by our reporting – could open the door to challenges to other decisions influenced by Gill, an unregulated expert believed to have given evidence in hundreds of family court cases.

Article continues at https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2025-10-23/mum-who-lost-custody-of-children-has-experts-evidence-overturned

Judges can be rogue. Cafcass have all kinds of weird agendas.

And I used a barrister the first few times but
a) my barrister's hadnt read the papers and I kept having to correct basic facts. So it wasn't arrogant that made me think I could do a better job than them it was bitter experience
b) CMS have no teeth so weren't making exH pay so it was a choice between putting food on the table or paying for a barrister that hadn't read the papers anyway

(Also, it is frankly quite odd to act like you are an authority on something because of what a family member does as a profession. )

@OnlyFangs Ok. Happy to shut up. If you are as good as a barrister, you obviously should have been one or at least got your solicitor to hire a good one.

I am basing what I said on direct experience. See @Quantumfisiks post too.

Barrister plus lawyer.

I’m glad you’ve been able to comfort your daughter, but it’s disgraceful that she had to live with her abuser.

Cafcass then conveniently forgot all about it and continued acting like he was the most wonderful model of Parenthood ever.

How I wish I could say that was unbelievable. It should be, of course. These arrogant, negligent and incompetent people should never be given so much power.

One of my relatives had to hand her toddler over to his father every weekend while the poor little fellow was sobbing and clinging to her, and she was trying not to cry. Her ex wasn’t physically violent but frightening and domineering, with no idea how to be a dad. She had tried everything she could to protect the little boy but, as we all discovered, a father’s ownership had to be respected. My eyes still fill with tears remembering it.

The little boy has grown up quiet and introverted. He’s got a job but doesn’t mix socially with his colleagues and has no friends I know of. Says hello when we visit, and answers politely, but has no interest in going out or returning a visit. He spends all his free time in his room, usually on the Internet. He is so clearly just keeping his head down, staying out of trouble, keeping away from other people as much as possible. It’s heartbreaking.

All those children handed over to abusers like free gifts. It’s unbearable to think about.

I agree. It is absolutely horrific. They break a child’s attachment bonds and they’ll never be repaired.

The fees absolutely do come to this. @ScrollingLeaves is right - £30k isn’t unusual. That’s what solicitors will tell you to budget.

you can hire a 12 year old who has just qualified and pay around £650- 800 a day, my solicitor advised me I could cut costs by getting a newly qualified barrister to 1st hearings, but then paying more for final hearing. And my solicitor had actually got my expensive barrister to lower his rate to £2.5k a day.

and i saw how much my twat of an ex paid in fees- much more than I was because he hired a very expensive lawyer and barrister thinking I’d have to pay the fees. Highly amusing when he had to pay it himself but that’s another story!

This is a close copy of the Sharia ruling that a woman may only complain to court about her husband's beatings after she proves her injuries by showing them to the all-male court. But, it is forbidden for a woman to uncover any part of herself to any male.

There was a case reported on BBC Radio where a woman couldn't understand why the children were so scared to go to the father, and why they began to wet the bed etc., extremely disturbed. Eventually they told her daddy hurts them in bed, and how. She asked for the residential visits to be changed to supervised ones. But, afraid of losing his prey, he used exactly this "parental alienation" tactic, claiming mother had coached the children to make such a wicked accusation. The court reacted by banning the mother from contact, and giving the man total control.

By a fluke chance, a completely different child, unknown to his own daughters or his wife, told police that the man had done things to her. It was discovered to be easily proved. Only then could his daughters be taken away from him.

That in turn is like the Pelicot case. All that rape was only discovered because he 'upskirted' someone else.

It is so harrowing.
And the American man who invented “parental alienation” was openly a paedophile protector.

Now it is embedded as a concept and even though it has been supposedly discredited you can be sure agents like Cafcass barristers and judges will be under its influence; and ‘alienating behaviours’ is the replacement concept.

The father of that little girl who was murdered after horrible treatment at his hands was believed and favoured by the court and evidence of previous aggression was ignored.

Jesus Christ.

I have just looked at Melanie Gill's LinkedIn page. No-one reading it would consider her to be any kind of professional, surely. It's a mess.

I’m as horrified as anyone else by the use of patently harmful ‘experts’ as witnesses but I wouldnt want the quality of someone’s Linked In page to be the criterion of choice either. Or their hair colour, or their conventional femininity/masculinity.

I don’t in fact know how British courts examine the quality of expert witnesses, I’ve only ever seen the process in American films.

So this moron can make up any old shit and be believed but the IT expert in the Sandy Peggie case was considered not credible because he used one exclamation mark?

Be glad Big Sandy doesn't sit in the Family Courts.

Full article - https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/why-my-book-on-mothers-battling-for-custody-was-pulped-not-once-but-twice

Can also be read at https://archive.is/bQ9F3

Her ex sounds like a complete cock

And sadly seems to be a common feature of this court cases.

Thank you.

Boiling with rage. How can she keep going?!

Forums, as a pathetic compensation, luckily are roughly anonymous groups where women can tell other people what is happening so they can know what to expect, and possibly how to be forearmed, but evidently you need to be extremely careful not to get found out. Like a witches’ coven.

Barristers seem to read the papers/evidence at the very last minute and not all of them are good. They must often be relying on routine to pull them through a lot of the time, just like anyone else. Here the stakes are frequently higher though.

@ScrollingLeaves You do know they often don’t get the bundle from the solicitor until extremely last minute? Hardly their fault. As in most professions thereby a spectrum of quality but a solicitor should know who they are appointing for a particular case. They have a choice.

No doubt this happens, but I know otherwise too, Ohdear111.

I’m sure you do. However the solicitor should know who is good. That’s why it’s important to use a decent solicitor.

Where are these forums? I may have to go to court again. Are you talking about Mumsnet?