Vulnerable Clients: Female Psychologist Appointed

Maria Kitsiou

Court Allows Female Expert for Abuse Victim in Family Case

Many of our family clients are highly vulnerable, and sensitivity is needed in how we manage their needs and achieve the desired outcomes. This includes thinking carefully about the involvement of third parties during the case.

It is encouraging that a judge has allowed a female expert psychologist to be appointed instead of a male expert in circumstances where the mother was a victim of sexual abuse. The family team at Osbornes Law have years of experience supporting individuals and families where domestic violence and other abusive behaviours is involved.

In this case [Re: A (A Child: Appeal: Case Management Decision: Identity of Expert) [2024] EWHC 1669 (Fam)], concerns arose around the fact that the court-approved expert psychologist was male.

Female expert

The issue arose in the course of long-running private children proceedings involving the parties’ 12-year-old son. The father (F) was seeking a child arrangement order. M applied for a non-molestation order having made allegations of domestic violence and coercion against F (he denied the allegations).

The judge had given permission for an expert to undertake a global psychological assessment of the son and both parents. The expert was male, however M was evidently traumatised by a history of male violence and wanted a female expert to undertake the assessment.

She unsuccessfully applied for the appointment of the expert to be varied or discharged. M appealed that decision, arguing that the judge was wrong to order that expert to carry out the assessment – she would feel traumatised during and after an assessment with a male psychologist.

M told the court she had suffered male violence in the past, including rape and sexual abuse. Her ability to offer her ‘best evidence’ was therefore at risk. Furthermore, her psychotherapist is female, and she only ever received mental health support from females because she was a victim of male violence.

Such was her trauma and distress that she told the judge she felt unable to fully explain in detail why she did not want to see a male psychologist. The appeal judge allowed her appeal and concluded:

• The trial judge ought to have known M was making allegations of domestic abuse against F
• M’s objection to a male psychologist was raised at “the eleventh hour”, but the judge engaged with her argument only superficially, at best. M had given good reasons for a female psychologist to be used.
• The best possible assessment evidence would be obtained by appointing a female psychologist to undertake the assessment

‘Best’ evidence

In addition to coming to a wrong decision, the trial judge had also failed to identify M as vulnerable under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and as a complainant of domestic abuse under the Family Procedure Rules (Part 3A).

These rules require the court to consider whether the quality of an individual’s evidence is “likely to be diminished by reason of vulnerability”. If so, participation directions should be implemented. The judge had failed to do so – that that was a breach of natural justice.

The judge reiterate the principle that the court’s only concern in family proceedings is to get at the truth – this procedure is intended to facilitate this.

What does this mean?

The decision is not only a relief for vulnerable parties who are the victims of abuse, it is also a sensible and proportionate outcome that should have been reached before an appeal became necessary.

How Can We Help?

We know that the way we support clients can profoundly impact their wellbeing and the final outcome of their case. For advice and support from experienced family solicitors, contact Maria Kitsiou, Partner and Head of Domestic Children, or contact us by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811