Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case concerns an appeal by the mother against final care orders made in March 2023 by Her Honour Judge Gillespie for three children (A born 2011, twins B and C born 2017). The mother claimed the judge's decision relied heavily on evidence from expert psychologist Mr Graham Flatman who, she alleged, acted outside his professional expertise. Flatman was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council as an educational psychologist and was chartered by the British Psychological Society. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in March 2026, finding no serious procedural irregularity and that the judge's decision was securely based on the whole evidence, with the other evidence clearly supporting the making of care orders.
Issues
- The appellant mother asserts that the jointly instructed expert psychologist, Mr Graham Flatman, acted outside the limits of his expertise when providing a psychological assessment of the mother and children. She argues that the care orders cannot stand because the expert was unqualified to undertake the clinical psychological assessment of an adult in family proceedings.
- The appeal court must determine whether there was a serious procedural irregularity in the instruction of Mr Flatman as an expert witness that rendered the judge's decision unjust. The court examines whether the lack of formal Part 25 application and failure to disclose the ongoing HCPC complaint constituted a serious irregularity.
Holdings
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against care orders. The court found there was no serious procedural irregularity in the instruction of Mr Graham Flatman as an expert psychologist witness, and the judge's decision was not unjust as it was securely based on the whole evidence, of which Mr Flatman's opinion was only one part. The court rejected the appellant's contention that Mr Flatman was unqualified to give evidence, noting he was registered as an educational psychologist with the HCPC and chartered by the BPS, and the psychological assessment of the family required broad expertise that could be provided by an educational psychologist.
Remedies
The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal against the Family Court's care orders. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that there was no serious procedural irregularity in the instruction of the expert witness and that the judge's decision was not unjust. The care orders with a plan for long-term foster care remain in place.
Legal Principles
In children proceedings, expert evidence is regulated by way of weight rather than admissibility. For an appeal to succeed, the appellant must show the decision was unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity. The court should know about an expert's qualifications and experience before they get anywhere near the witness box. HCPC registration or BPS chartered status provides reliable authentication of expertise. Appeals regarding expert qualification issues are more appropriately made to the Family Court rather than by appeal, as the Family Court can gather up-to-date information when deciding how to proceed. Experts should use their protected specialist title as it appears on the HCPC register and be transparent about qualifications.
Precedent Name
- Re M & R (Minors)
- Re J (Children: Reopening Findings of Fact)
- Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert)
- Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach)
- Serafin v Malkiewicz
Cited Statute
- Health Professionals Order 2001
- Children Act 1989
- Civil Evidence Act 1972
- Children and Families Act 2014
Judge Name
- Lord Justice Peter Jackson
- Sir Andrew McFarlane
- Lord Justice Lewison
Passage Text
- We are not therefore satisfied that there has been a serious procedural or other irregularity arising from the instruction or the evidence of Mr Flatman.
- In order to succeed, the appellant must show that the decision under appeal was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.
- The judge's decision was based on the evidence as a whole and, while Mr Flatman drew matters together in his evidence, the other evidence so clearly supported the making of care orders that it is realistically impossible to envisage any other outcome.