New family court rules spark hope that the ‘days of bogus experts are over’: Changes coming into effect this month will keep unregulated experts out of courts in all but exceptional cases is the headline from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) on 10 July.
The article reports that the Family Procedure Rules are amended with effect from 20 July 2026 in response to widespread concern about family courts’ use of certain psychologists as expert witnesses to assess families where there are disputes between parents about child arrangements (i.e who the children should live with and what contact they will have with the other parent). Many of these cases involve allegations of abuse and harm. As is now well-publicised, some of the psychologists appointed were not regulated by a professional body and were poorly qualified. In particular, psychologists like Melanie Gill have advised courts to separate children from their mothers on the basis of ‘parental alienation’. TBIJ have published a number of investigations into court decisions based on this sort of assessment.
Research into the issues has also been undertaken by Beatrix Campbell
Awaiting consultation by the Rule Committee on a possible rule change, guidance on appointing regulated experts was given by Sir Andrew McFarlane in February in a case called Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 where he said:
In future, permission should not be given under CFA 2014, s 13 for the instruction of an expert ‘psychologist’ who is neither registered by a relevant statutory body, nor chartered by the BPS. [73]
What the new rules say
The Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 say that, in cases about children, the court may only appoint an expert witness who is regulated by a UK statutory body; on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care; or regulated by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007. An exception can be made if there is no regulated expert available, because
(a) the issue to which the expert evidence relates may only be resolved with the expertise of an expert who is not a regulated expert; or
(b) the instruction of a regulated expert would cause significant delay in the proceedings which would not be in the best interests of the child.
If permission is given to appoint an unregulated expert, the court must give reasons, including
(a) the steps taken by the parties to identify a regulated expert, and
(b) the reasons why the expert instructed meets the standards set out in the relevant Practice Direction.
Dr Jaime Craig, Chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK posted a cautionary note on LinkedIn:
Following years of lobbying the family justice system, parliamentarians and policy makers, a high court intervention and raising public awareness in the media the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK campaign to restrict the use of unregulated experts in the family courts has led to a change in the rules. The Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 restricts unregulated experts from acting as expert witnesses in Family Law Children Proceedings. The amendments come into force on 20 July 2026. It is not perfect, by introducing a definition of “regulated expert” to include not just those regulated by a UK statutory body but also those on voluntary membership registers accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care – the potential for confusion and need for vigilance in implementation will remain high.
In terms of psychological expert evidence Association of Clinical Psychologists UK ‘s longstanding position for many years has been that only HCPC-regulated practitioner psychologists should be given permission to come into contact with a child or adult to medically, psychologically or otherwise assess them for the purposes of provision of evidence. Importantly, in October 2025, this clarification was included by the British Psychological Society when they relaunched their expert witness register. That register also includes chartered psychologists who ‘can provide evidence on generalised findings from research but are not regulated for offering evidence on individuals’.
In ensuring that the available safeguards provided by these rule changes are effective in preventing further harms through the misuse of expert evidence and pseudoscience in our family courts, it will be vital that all membership organisations with PSA accredited registers hold their members to account and that those instructing expert witnesses follow the Family Justice Council guidance and do their part to uphold the public protection principles in these rules changes. Crucially if psychological assessment evidence is needed this means checking the register at the The Health and Care Professions Council.
Certain ‘technical experts’ in digital forensics, DNA testing, handwriting analysis, or toxicology testing, are not required by the rules to be regulated in the same way.
As explained by Lucy Reed KC on her Pink Tape blog, it’s important to note that these new rules only apply to expert appointments from next week, not to existing or previous appointments.
Meanwhile, Melanie Gill continues to speak at international engagements about her expertise in ‘attachment science and neuroscience’.