In 2019, a family court judge in England and Wales determined that Kate was an emotionally unfit parent. On the strength of that judicial assessment, rather than any formal clinical evaluation by a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist, her son Gabriel was separated from her.

No HCPC-registered psychologist, chartered psychologist, or other regulated clinical expert conducted a standardised assessment of Kate’s emotional or psychological capacity as a parent. No diagnostic tools, clinical interviews, or supervised professional judgment underpinned the finding. The pronouncement came from a judge: a legal professional expert in applying the Children Act 1989 and evaluating evidence, but not trained or qualified to deliver clinical opinions on emotional fitness.

This case illustrates a broader structural issue in private law children proceedings. Judges routinely make authoritative statements about parents’ emotional states, psychological fitness, parenting capacity, and the likely emotional impact of arrangements on children. These conclusions can result in profound, life-altering decisions — including changes of residence or restricted contact — yet they are made without the specialised clinical training required for such assessments.

Supporting research highlights the risks of this approach:

In 2021, an international group of around 70 attachment researchers, coordinated with input from the University of Cambridge, published a consensus statement warning that family courts frequently misunderstand or misapply psychological concepts, including attachment theory. They emphasised that attachment assessments have limited precision for individual predictions and urged greater reliance on direct evidence of caregiving behaviour rather than broad assumptions about emotional bonds or parental “fitness”.

The Ministry of Justice’s 2020 Expert Panel report (Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases) identified challenges in how courts handle complex emotional and relational dynamics, including the need for improved training and more consistent, evidence-based processes.

The Family Justice Council’s December 2024 guidance on a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent (and allegations of alienating behaviours) reinforces an important safeguard: such issues are factual matters for the court to determine, not clinical diagnoses. The guidance sets out a clear three-element test and stresses that safeguarding concerns, including domestic abuse, must be properly addressed first.

Professional authority is not the same as professional expertise.

In clinical psychology or psychiatry, definitive statements about emotional unfitness require rigorous training, validated methods, and ethical oversight. Family court judges wield significant power precisely because difficult decisions must be made — but that power does not confer clinical expertise. When judicial findings on emotional fitness substitute for, or outpace, regulated expert input, the consequences can be severe.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) research has long shown the long-term developmental harm that can result from unnecessary disruptions to secure parent-child relationships, just as it documents the damage of exposure to abuse or harmful conflict.

Recent developments — including strengthened expectations around expert evidence, compulsory judicial training on domestic abuse, and the 2024 Family Justice Council guidance — are positive steps. However, more is needed: timely access to high-quality, regulated psychological expertise where emotional or mental health issues are central; rigorous fact-finding on safeguarding allegations before psychological interpretations are applied; and greater institutional recognition of the boundary between legal judgment and clinical assessment.

The separation of Kate and Gabriel is a stark reminder of what is at stake. When decisions about a parent’s emotional fitness rest primarily on judicial authority rather than clinical expertise, children and families can pay a lasting price.

Family courts operate in one of the most challenging areas of law. The goal must remain decisions that genuinely serve the child’s best interests — grounded in appropriate evidence and respect for the limits of each profession’s expertise.

Sources

University of Cambridge (2021). Family court decisions distorted by misuse of key research.

Barnett, A. (2020). A genealogy of hostility: Parental alienation in England and Wales. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law.

Ministry of Justice (2020). Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases.

Family Justice Council (December 2024). Guidance on responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour.

Felitti, V.J. et al. (1998). Adverse Childhood Experiences study.