Welcome to the Heartbreak to Happiness Show with Sarah Davison. If you're struggling with a breakup and you feel shocked, angry, betrayed, devastated, or sad and alone, then this podcast is for you. Best-selling author and award-winning host, Sarah Davison, shares how you too can get on with your life to heal, grow, and move from heartbreak to happiness.
SPEAKER_01So I know this is happening, but for a lot of my listeners, they won't know this is happening. And they're going to be saying, How on earth does a case like Florence's or Rewhite actually come about? How do we end up with these children then desperately trying to get back to their mothers? What's going on?
SPEAKER_02I think not enough professionals understand about coercive controlling behaviour. Not enough professionals understand about the significance and ramifications of domestic abuse. I think not enough professionals hold themselves up to account about whether they're properly applying the guidance and the training. And I don't think other professionals hold their colleagues up to account when they see failures in motion.
SPEAKER_00Here's your host, Sarah Davison.
SPEAKER_01Welcome back to the show. Now today I am very excited because I am bringing to you a two-part special series with some incredible guests that I am really lucky to have in the studio with me today. So this is going to be about child removal in private family law proceedings in England and Wales. Now I'm going to explain what that is, but let me just start by saying this is a matter that's really close to my personal heart and also a lot of my coaches that I've trained and a lot of the clients that I support. So it is going to be a bit of an emotional roller coaster. Some of it might be a bit shocking, some of it might be a little bit emotional for some of you, but please know you're not alone. There are support groups, support helplines in the show notes. So do check those out, including, as you'll know, my online free support groups as well. So if you want to talk to somebody or you need some help, if this brings up anything for you, you're not alone. We're here to support. But I think this is really important. This is, in my opinion, the biggest scandal that's happening in the family courts that nobody knows about. And we're about to blow the lid off it. So let me introduce you to my guests. Now we have Dr. Charlotte Proudman, who is the author of the book. I'm sure you will, as soon as you finish listening to this episode, she's a prominent women's rights barrister and founder of the firm Proudman's and the non-profit Right to Equality. I'm really pleased to be running this episode in partnership with Right to Equality as well. So thank you, Charlotte, for being here. We also have Professor Joe Delahunty Casey, who is a leading Silk in both public and private law cases, winner of the 2025 Family Silk of the Year for Skills, and also an author of two recent books, which we'll be talking about later as well. And someone that's very special to me. We've got Claire Waxman OBE, who is the Victims Commissioner for England and Wales. So their job roles, what they do, will become much more explained as we go through. Now, to start this episode, I want to start by reading a quote from an article by Hannah Summers, who's an incredible journalist, published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism earlier this month. Florence, that's not her real name, was at home with her maths tutor on the day she was taken away from her mother. Without warning, a social worker came to the house and told her she had half an hour to pack her things. Florence burst into tears. She was just 10 years old. I stuffed my favourite outfit in a bag, this blue shirt and leggings, along with a photo of me and mum, she recalls. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It's what mum would do for me if ever she had to go away. Florence later learned this parting gesture had been used to criticize her mother, who had been her primary carer since her parents separated two years earlier. The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parents' feelings, and it was a sign of abuse, she told us. After walking Florence to her father's house, the social worker told her she would be able to go home in four or five weeks. Later, she was told six months. In the end, it took her five years, a remarkable and a remarkable high court battle, before she was able to return to live with her mother. Now you can read that article by Hannah Summers in full on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism website, but Charlotte, can I start with you? I mean, I find that hard just to read out loud. Can you explain a bit more to our listeners just about how did Florence find herself in a position that she was being removed from her mum?
SPEAKER_03So I met Florence when she was a teenager, and gosh, what a remarkable, courageous young woman she was, and of course still is today. And she had really been through a significant amount of trauma through family courts, desperate to reunite with her mother, as you say, having been dragged away from her at the tender age of 10, 10 years old, unimaginable, unthinkable even, and placed to live eventually with her father on the basis that her mother was not giving Florence, apparently, emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father. In actual fact, the family court, prior to expert involvement, had found that Florence and her mother had been victims of what I and others might describe as domestic abuse. So involved in quite volatile physical incidents which had frightened Florence and her mother in the family home. Florence didn't want to spend a significant amount of time with her father, perhaps one might say, understandably, given her memories of living in that household. Notwithstanding that, the father cajoled the family court to instruct experts in parental alienation. Parental alienation is a contested, very contentious concept, and it's one that has been regarded as a pseudoscience. What I mean by that is that, of course, it's not necessarily endorsed by everyone within family courts, and certainly myself and others very much object to the use of parental alienation. It's referred to predominantly, I would say, by abusive fathers on the basis that apparently the child the child doesn't want to see them, not because of their abusive behaviour, but actually because the mother's manipulating the child and trying to turn the child against the father. And so in Florence's case, she ended up being assessed by experts, and she was found to be a child who had been effectively negatively influenced by her mother at the tender age of 10. And then Florence embarked on a long struggle within family courts to try and return to her mother. And I think it's important to note, you know, there are tens of thousands of children that are subject to private law family proceedings every year where significant decisions are made about their livelihoods. And Florence, like very sadly, so many others, find themselves subject to what we might call transfers of residence, meaning moving from the parenting, the care, the loving home of one parent, in Florence's case, a mother, and in fact the vast majority of cases, the mother, and placed with the father in often so-called parental alienation cases.
SPEAKER_01I mean, I find it fascinating because she was removed from her mum with very little notice by the sounds of things here, um, and she was taken away from her mum at the age of 10. Now, some listeners might be thinking, well, you know, were there real serious safeguarding risks? Because we can understand if a child is being harmed and it's dangerous for them to be there, then obviously it can make sense in some circumstances to for the child not to be there. Is that what we're talking about here?
SPEAKER_03I mean, I agree with you. I mean, when there are real safeguarding issues, the child shouldn't be living with a parent where they pose a significant risk of harm to them. Of course not. And the family court should step in and provide protection and, of course, prevention from that type of harm. In the case of Florence, though, we're not talking about, in my view at least, tangible safeguarding concerns such that Florence couldn't live with her mother any longer because the harm was considered to be just so severe. In fact, what we saw is that removing Florence from living with her mother and placing her with her father caused her a significant amount of trauma.
unknownOh, of course.
SPEAKER_03So when you think about the balance of harm, i.e., Florence staying with her mother in a context where experts in the court apparently found her mother wasn't giving her emotional permission to have with uh to spend time with her father, versus them being torn away from her primary parent, the person who had given birth to her, who'd raised her, who she'd lived with for the entirety at that point of her minority, and then placed with a father who'd been abusive. It is, I suspect, you know, unimaginable the amount of trauma that she suffered. And she's spoken, I think, very viscerally and powerfully about that. And the other thing that Florence has said is that in fact her mother did encourage her to have a relationship with her father. And it was Florence that didn't want necessarily to spend a large amount of time with him, and that was Florence's preference. And I think one of the curious things about family courts is that they have this very homogeneous expectation about what a family should look like, particularly after separation, and that a child should be ideally sharing their time with both parents and enjoying the time and moving from one house to the other very happily, and these are loving homes. And of course, we know that doesn't work for every child. And in Florence's case, when she got to the point where she was a teenager and had a greater voice and she said, I will be listened to, I won't be silenced any longer, I want to return and live with my mother, is when she took that bold, brave step of launching her own legal proceedings. I think one of the first cases in the family court where a child has done this within a case which is otherwise known as parental alienation, where she has fought for the right to return to her mother.
SPEAKER_01I think it's amazing that at 15 she's deciding to go and stand up for herself and go to court and say, This is what I want. I mean, that's an incredible I mean it's stressful enough as someone that has been through the family court system many times, um, as an adult, you know, where you've got support and you've gone through this kind of thing before. How on earth does a 15-year-old girl, how did how did she cope with that?
SPEAKER_03Well, I mean, she is extraordinary. I mean, she really is. Um, but I just want to take you back to when Florence first tried to instruct solicitors to represent her. Florence was living with her father. You know, she is living with her father and she is trying to find a solicitor's firm that will act for her to make an application to a family judge to try and reunite and live with her mother whilst living under the roof of her father. I mean, I I suspect that living within that environment would have been very difficult for Florence. I think she described it to me as walking on eggshells at times. You know, there she is sitting in her bedroom, tapping away on a laptop, um, receiving correspondence through the post from her solicitors, and a father knowing that this is a child, his child, in fact, that wants to go and live with her mother. To me, you know, as a lawyer and I suppose as a woman looking in on this, I'm curious as to why a parent didn't respect their child's wishes such that they didn't have to go through years of litigation and further pain and heartache in that process. And, you know, I I remember then um meeting Florence, I mean, in Chambers, so she she came to Chambers um when I was representing her. It was a remote hearing, and um we had a huge screen uh with the High Court hearing on, and um, there was her mother, there was her father, her father's barrister, and there's myself and Florence sitting in this uh very large room littered with books, and a very, I suspect, daunting experience for Florence, and she was actually in the hearing, and she watched the whole thing unfold. So we cross-examined the Kafkas officer who didn't support Florence living with her mother, which I just find unfathomable at 15. The denial of her agency and autonomy in that way, and the failure to recognise the harm that that would cause to her later in life, in particular, as she grows to become you know a young woman. And um, and then, of course, cross-examining her father, cross-examining her mother, and then waiting for the judge to reach a determination. And Florence, unlike I think many children in family court proceedings, even met the judge. So she met Mrs. Justice Judge just shortly prior to her hearing starting, and I remember her going in there, and she just she was so confident, and I think she really just appreciated the enormity of what she was going through and felt she'd fought for years to get here, and here she finally was.
SPEAKER_01Just shows you the amount of pain that she must have been in to drive that courage for her. I mean, it's absolutely incredible. I know you cover this in your book, don't you?
SPEAKER_03Yes. I do. I I um cover this in my book where I say normally a child being represented by their guardian would not attend these proceedings, but Florence was more than present. As I cross-examine both of her parents, she was closely involved, passing me notes, asking me to mute the feed so that she could instruct me verbally. She was confident, clear, and in command of detail, in so many ways, one of the most remarkable clients I've represented. And Florence, in fact, very recently took me back to a letter that she had wrote at the time when she was just 12 years old. Um, and she wrote that letter to the president of the family division, setting out her experiences of going through family court and how desperate she was to reunite with her mother. She wasn't listened to, she wasn't heard, and it took her several more years until finally she was.
SPEAKER_01Well, I mean, for people listening, I know this is hard hitting, but it's important, isn't it, that we share these stories. And I think we're all interested to know is this the one-off? Is Florence's story a unique story or does it happen a lot? So before I move on to you, Joe, I'm just going to read out a section from a different article from the writer, journalist and broadcaster Beatrix Campbell, which reported on a case that happened in January. The link will be shown in the show notes so you can have a look at it. Court 33, the Royal Courts of Justice, 29th of January. The judge sits up high, no wig, just normal, suit, tie, spectacles. The president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, presides in what promised to be a landmark case, re-wide. Below him were a few people, court officials, eminent family lawyers, journalists, and a mother applying to the judge to set aside a 2019 court-enforced ban on her having any contact with her children. Her alleged offence inducing in her children parental alienation against the father and her son a very unusual presence in Court 33. He supported his mother's application and he was determined to hear what was going to be said about him. Now a teenager, nearly 16, wearing a suit, he listened focused and expressionless. He had insisted on being present. For six years, his voice, his feelings, and his assistant determined expressed wishes to live with his mother had been dismissed by the family justice system. His presence in the quiet decorum of the f of the court was, however, a detonator. Oh gosh, Joe. I understand that you were indeed one of those eminent family lawyers that was in court that day in January. Is this another case like Florence's?
SPEAKER_02It is, and there are so many similarities. But I want to start off before talking about the similarities about what it was like to have the responsibility and the privilege of acting for the young person in that situation. He has been termed ReY in the case in that name because it's a confidential set of proceedings. But I don't want that initial to detract from the fact that this is a very real story for a child who was failed by the family justice system. To the extent that when I made my submissions to the court on his behalf, I queried whether the word justice was properly to be found in the system that had delivered this outcome to him. So where are the similarities? The similarities are that the young person I was acting for was fifteen and a half, just a couple of months, I think, short of his 16th birthday. He had been removed from his mother, age nine. He'd been having an afternoon uh play session with his mother's friend at the time. The first he knew he was leaving her care was when the social services turned up, and he was taken from there to his father's home. So he wasn't even taken from his own home. He didn't see his own home again until six years later when he left his father's home and got into a stranger's car and asked to be taken to his mother. It was only his strength of will, his decision to vote with his feet, that meant he saw her six years after having been removed from her care, never understanding he would not see her in that intervening period. Other similarities. He was removed from his mother's care because an expert, an unregulated expert by the name of Melanie Gill, had advised that he was someone who was at risk of harm by virtue of his mother's behaviour towards him and his father, i.e. by alienating him from seeing his father. He was in fact seeing his father, living with his mother, having a regulated relationship with his father. What changed was his removal from his mother, which then meant he never saw her again, as I said, for six years. So it turned an ordinary controversial, contentious divorce situation into one of extreme separation so far as this young person was concerned. He had told everyone who was involved, his guardian, so that's the representative I ought to explain, that's appointed by the court to be the voice, the eyes and ears of the child. The child solicitor, who acts on behalf of the guardian, the court, who's meant to be having the child's wear for its heart, the local authority, the social workers. All of those protective limbs that are placed around a child, they don't need to be front and centre of the court, even though it's their welfare, are there to identify what the real risk is and who the real risk emanates from. My young person had been very, very clear from the earliest moment he was spoken to by his CACASA officer, his guardian, that he was aware of abuse within the home perpetrated against his mother, by his father, and indeed against his sister. So he was a live witness to events. He gave that account, but that account was immediately siloed because there was a suspicion raised that what he had said was not his own experiences, but that which his mother had coached him to. He was nine. He was articulate, but using a child's words and phrases, there was a narrative there that was clear, consistent, poignant, and powerful. But each time it was siloed as not being his own words, his own actions. So just like Charlotte's client, Florence, after proceedings where you have someone who's there to represent you who doesn't who doesn't represent your views and wishes, when he eventually found a judge that will listen to him, it was Levin Jay. Six years later, she asked to speak to him, and he did in a confidential manner. And we asked him afterwards what he felt of it. And his words were finally. Finally, someone has listened to me. That's why at the next hearing he insisted on being in court. He was no longer prepared to be spoken about. He was no longer prepared to be spoken over. He was only prepared to have his voice articulated between professionals he had learned to trust. That was myself, my junior, Chris Barnes, and the most eminent, reliable, hard-working doy-in at the family bar, Peggy Ray. Because it's no accident that there are these number of professionals around, because we know these are example cases, they're not outliers and they happen too often. Where are the other similarities? I think the most damning thing that you would expect to hear the president of the family division to say in his judgment on this case is this. When the process that was followed in 2019 is held up for audit against the principles of good practice in cases concerning alleged alienating behaviour, which are now well established, every agency in these proceedings can be seen to have been at fault. By every agency, I'm referring to CAFCAS, the children's solicitor, the local authority, and the court. This judgment, therefore, is not about Melanie Gill. It is much more worryingly about the failure of a system to act as it should have done in discharging its responsibility to protect the children and to prioritize their welfare needs. Now, when you read that in a judgment, that must be the most excoriating criticism of a system that has not placed the child's welfare at its heart. And if I can just leave your listeners with this thought, as I said to the president, this is not a case about a mother alienating her child from the father. It is about the court system alienating the child from his mother. That is unacceptable and it must not happen again.
SPEAKER_01I mean that moves me. I mean, I find this topic very emotional for many reasons, but I it's so unbelievable that this is happening in today's society. It sounds medieval, and I know that this is I've been talking to Claire about this for many years. Um I know this is happening, but for a lot of my listeners, they won't know this is happening, and they're going to be saying, How on earth does a case like Florence's or Rewhite actually come about? How do we end up with these children then desperately trying to get back to their mothers? What's going on?
SPEAKER_02I think not enough professionals understand about coercive controlling behaviour. Not enough professionals understand about the significance and ramifications of domestic abuse. I think not enough professionals hold themselves up to account about whether they're properly applying the guidance and the training. And I don't think other professionals hold their colleagues up to account when they see failures in motion. So the rish the reason in this case I think failed so greatly is there was, as I've said, so many layers where, for example, the failing of wise guardian to properly identify what the issues were in the house and to prioritise them accordingly, that could have been picked up by the guardian solicitor. When the guardian solicitor didn't pick it up, there was every reason if you see wrong law being quoted and guidance not being reapplied, given that welfare is the court's paramount consideration that the opposing barrister or solicitor should have made sure that the right legal parameters were in place because none of us do our system any justice by allowing poor understanding of law to go forward. But ultimately, the judge, the court, they are there to properly scrutinize the process in front of them. And when things are going wrong, it's for the judge to ultimately say, this is going off track, let's re trigger. And then when that judge doesn't get things right, it's for the appellate judge to say these things went wrong. Now, at every level, at every stage, every protective limb that should be placed around a child was failed. And it's not the only system, it's not the only instance. It just happens to be one that came to court because a child, very much like Florence, decided to make their voice heard, even though others wanted to keep them into a, I think, a process of infantile silence. And I think that fundamentally demonstrates a misunderstanding about from what age a child is very aware of the environment in the home. So in public law proceedings, where we have, I think, a very different approach to understanding about the impact of domestic abuse and abusive behaviours, we would expect a protective parent to separate from someone who was being abusive towards them, either emotionally, psychologically, or physically. If they didn't, we would think, where's your priorities? You is it your partner or is it your child? We look to those who are the protective parent to take steps to distance themselves. And that's because we understand the impact of domestic abuse, because it doesn't matter that a child may not be in the room when voices are raised or when fists are pulled and punched, because the atmosphere in the room absolutely permeates, it's absorbed by the bricks, it's absorbed by a child because children have to learn to cope in that environment because they want to protect themselves and protect their loved one. So, how can it be in a public law system where we're looking at a child's welfare and we expect protective action to be taken, we don't positively look at the same obligation and give a more generous approach to it in private law. And that I think is because there's a two-tier system of justice operating.
SPEAKER_01I mean, it's horrific. And when you put it like that and you compare it, it just it doesn't even make any sense. It's almost we go to court to get justice. That's what we're, you know, we grew up believing, and this is clearly not what's happening in these cases. So I know you've published two books, you've been very busy. Tell us how do they relate to what we're talking about here?
SPEAKER_02So the two books. That is a love letter to those of us that work in legal aid law who do the work that we believe in because we want to act for the most vulnerable in society. And it's a book that talks about the cost of doing the work that we do, the responsibility we bear for doing it, and wanting to hold our work and our working practices up for public scrutiny and account, because I think legal aid is the fourth emergency service and it's at risk. Can you just explain what that is, legal aid? Legal aid is a system by which it's a system under which I acted for my young person. It's a system where without looking at disposable income for those who are involved in the public law system in particular, you're entitled to get a specialist lawyer, a solicitor, a barrister if necessary, or indeed a silk like myself, and we act for you, paid for by the state. So you're not denied justice because you can't afford a lawyer, because we recognise that court proceedings are incredibly intimidating. We talk about issues of law that were impenetrable to the general public and they shouldn't be expected to understand. That's why we train so hard. So legal aid gives someone involved in public law proceedings, in particular or in private law, in certain situations, the ability to be represented by solicitors. And it's a risk because it's been underfunded for decades. Those of us that are doing are worn out and broken by doing so much pro bono work, and it's a system that I live and breathe, and it's effectively a call for action to make sure that it's properly respected and funded by the state. So that's the book about the life of the law. This book, I'm only going to open it because there's a phrase here that explains that gives the answer to your question. And it says a book like this should not be required, yet the frequency with which domestic abuse and the court's approach to it triggers adverse commentary by campaign groups, the press and the public. And given the published Appellate decisions, one can't dismiss the suggestion that this book is exactly what's being required because the existing law is not properly understood, the existing research is not properly understood, and too many mistakes are happening. So this book was written because, like Charlotte, like Sarah, there's only so much we can do as an individual. I lecture on the subject, I train on the subject, I act in cases on the subject, I give advice on appeals on the subject, I put my voice and my actions out there in a pro bono way to try to improve in learning. But there's only so much one person can do. This book is designed to be an at-a-glance guide for every single stage of the legal proceedings, to know what good practice looks like, what the court expectations should be, what we expect of you as a fellow professional, and what clients should expect of you. So it tries to demystify the process. Because, and I should have said this in answer to the first question, I think what these cases illustrate is that when your child is removed from you, or when you are the child that's removed, that is a cataclysmic change in your whole being. Absolutely. And you're very unlikely ever to have encountered a social worker before, a police officer before. These cases aren't coming to court in the main because there are long-standing, ongoing drug alcohol problems. They are where in the main middle class families who are in private law disputes about divorce and separation suddenly come to a point when they realise the power of the state through the court, which is removal. And the harm that was caused to my young person and the harm caused to his mother is an ongoing one. Because the consequences are now for them to manage and to live with. And so, one poignant thing, just to leave on if I can, because I do want to finish talking about why, because this is what the system should be about, the children at the heart of the centre. And he was very plain that trust for him is now a significant issue. Who does he trust? Does he trust his teachers? No. Because they followed the findings of the court. Does he trust a social worker? No. Does he trust therapists? Absolutely not. Does he trust the court? Open question now. The hearing in front of Lee and Jane, the president, gave him something back, which is autonomy, respect, and the ability to make his own decisions. But just like Florence, he's really worried about other children out there.
SPEAKER_01Wow.
SPEAKER_02And I think he's right to be concerned.
SPEAKER_01Oh, 100%. I mean, I spend my days as a coach picking the mums up off the floor who are dealing with this as well. And, you know, this is happening. This is really out there. This is happening. This isn't just something that, you know, is a few people. This is this is a big thing, and everyone needs to understand it. So amazing that you've written these books. And, you know, all three of these books, guys, you've got to go and grab your copies because it's changing awareness is going to lead to change. Claire, let's come to you. I mean, we've started talking about this, and you were the first person that listened when I was talking to you that this was happening, and that was probably back in 2019, I think, wasn't it? And we were, you well, you've been publicly raising concerns about experts and child removal for a long time now. Um, can you tell people listening what your concerns are? We haven't really touched on the expert side of this either yet. So maybe explain to us what is an expert, putting that in quotation marks for people that aren't watching.
SPEAKER_04Uh I think maybe I should just come to how I came to this issue because obviously the work I do as victims commissioner is very much focused on access to justice for victims of crime, access to support, and safety. So I think for some people they might find it uh, you know, interesting. Well, why are you looking at the family court? Um so many victims were coming to me, victims of domestic abuse, coercive control, uh, rape, sexual violence, uh, children who disclose child sex abuse. And it was coming to my attention that um the point that Joe has made, you know, we mothers who are experiencing domestic abuse or rape and violence are expected to leave that abusive relationship in order to safeguard their children. And that's what they were doing. It takes a lot of bravery and courage to do that, and yet these victims were being pulled into the family court process. And what I was learning, and through our conversations and from meeting many victims and survivors, is that that abuse was being reframed as a parental alienation in order to obscure and dismiss those very serious allegations. And then more concerningly, I was hearing about experts or so-called experts who were being brought in, appointed by the family courts. And what I was seeing was a pattern that every time these experts were being brought into these cases, mothers, often that was the mother who was the victim, uh, were losing contact with their children, and we were seeing children being forcibly removed. Uh, and so I was becoming very alarmed by this pattern that I was seeing from so many victims and survivors who were talking to me in confidence because obviously you can't talk publicly. Uh, family court was very is very much uh you know behind closed doors. Um, and so um it I felt a real weight of responsibility that I was being told these stories and these experiences, and what could I do to challenge and change it? And I think the very first thing I did was reach out to uh an expert who I had been uh recommended to speak to, it was Melanie Gill. And I think that conversation was quite um a shocking conversation, if I'm honest, and that was uh sort of early on in 2020, uh, because of I picked up very quickly uh very extreme views against um mums and mothers, uh, a real lack of understanding of domestic abuse and coercive control and the dynamics of abuse. Um, and so I'd wanted to actually put in a formal complaint. I thought she was a regulated uh psychologist, and uh I soon learned that she wasn't, and then that took me down this process, this journey of then looking at other experts that had been appointed in the family court who were calling themselves experts uh and so-called psychologists, and I learned that they too were not uh regulated, so therefore you couldn't bring a complaint against them, they weren't, you couldn't hold them accountable. Uh, and so I decided to take that to government, and I did that in 2020 to raise the alarm and concerns who are these people that you're relying so heavily on, who have so much unchecked power in the family court, because they were influencing very unsafe decisions uh around contact and not recognizing, and the concern for me, not recognising the the risks and the harm and the abuse that often the mother and the child were experiencing.
SPEAKER_01I mean, you've been talking about this for a long time, and yet still a lot of people, when I talk about it to people, and when you know we're having this discussion today, I know there'll be people thinking, well, why haven't I heard about this? And what why is that?
SPEAKER_04As I said, I mean, you know, family courts are it's very much operates behind closed doors. Um parents who are involved in family court proceedings are not prohibited to talk about it publicly. Many, you know, face risks and consequences, even talking to me uh in my position as victims commissioner, where I need to hear from victims and survivors if I want to, you know, challenge change and reform systems. Um, and then of course, uh the media. You couldn't have court reporting until the transparency pilot, which started in June 2023, and now we've got uh you know some great investigative journalists, thanks to Hannah Summers and Louise Tickle, and you'd mentioned Beatrice, you know, thanks to their work, we've started to shine a light over the last few years on what's really going on in the family courts. Um, because even in my role as victims commissioner, I was disbelieved. And I was being called out as someone who was who was you know fantasizing and making these things up. Um and it's unbelievable. Well, it was unbelievable. You know, I have always said I'm here to champion the voice of victims and survivors. This is what they were telling me, this is what I was seeing, and so I held firm on that. We needed to see changes and we need to see reforms. So we've made some progress thanks to these investigative journalists, thanks to the work of Charlotte and Jo challenging these cases that we've heard to bring to light what's really happening. Um, but I think it's a national scandal, and I think we have so many more children who have been wrongly taken and removed from their protective parent. And I'm so concerned about firstly the risks that they're experiencing now, but the long-term damage and harm and trauma that they will continue to experience in their life as a result of very dangerous and wrong decisions that were made in the family court.
SPEAKER_01And this is children and their mothers, you know, there's ongoing consequences and damage for everyone, and that's definitely what I'm seeing. Are there any steps being taken to prevent these so-called experts from operating in the family courts?
SPEAKER_04Um, I mean, we've called for quite some time because obviously the term psychologist is not a protected title, and that needs legislative change. Unfortunately, we haven't made much progress there. We've been pushing government on that. Um, I mean, Charlotte and Joe can talk probably more to the changes that are sort of happening within family court around family procedural rules, and I think there is a real step away to, you know, uh for judiciary not to be appointing unregulated experts. Um, but we certainly haven't gone far enough. So for me, there is a real need for legislative change still to ban these unregulated experts, um, but also I want us to be looking at, uh, and I've called on government to urgently review cases where these so-called experts were used, and what's happened to those children and what's happened, you know, and and look at what's the appeal process? How do we ensure that mothers who might be impacted where they've lost children as a result of an unregulated expert, how easy is it for them to now come forward and appeal those decisions? You know, there's a cost to that as well, and obviously it's out of time, so we really need to look at ways to make that more accessible. Um, and for me, it's about ensuring that the family court becomes a place where it really is safeguarding children and that children are not being put at risk. And I really feel we need to go further. We've looked, I've Charlotte and I have worked over the years, doing piecemeal bits of legislation, trying to shoehorn it into any piece of legislation that we can. Um but right to equality and others are very much calling for a family justice bill, uh, which I very much uh champion as well and support the call on government to bring forward a family justice bill, because we need to see stronger reforms in our family court to better protect. For me, it's the victims, the children and victims of abuse and sexual abuse and child sex abuse that are in those courts where it's not being identified and they're not getting the proper safeguarding and support that they need.
SPEAKER_01If someone's listening to this right now and they're thinking, I'm being dragged through this right now, what do I do? Who do I talk to? Like to get actual advice and help, what can they do?
SPEAKER_02They need to find the right lawyers. There are too many inexperienced lawyers who don't have enough time and knowledge to give the type of advice that's really critical in these cases. Finding the right lawyer is hard. Hard but and obviously it'd be wrong on this program to identify any individual ones, but people need to do their research. They need to look at the cases that have been reported, they need to look at the representation, and they need to find someone they can learn to trust because the court system is a hostile process. It doesn't intend to be, but it's bureaucratic, very difficult to navigate. And a Litiganton person, I can understand why you want to be that person when you've lost trust in the professionals around you. But that way lies, I think, lost opportunity. I've got the mic and I'm just going to hold it for a moment because I want to pick up one of the points that that that was mentioned here. Coming back to my child client again, young person client, there was something so powerful about having him in court with the president having a case example over six years brought to account where he said it was a failure. And there was a silence in court where the question was, what next? Because this mother had gone through all the right processes, she'd done everything she could, both in person and with a good legal team, and each of the protective steps had been rejected. So in that silence that fell, we took advantage of it. Not just me, not just uh Chris Barnes, who I led, and Peggy Ray, not just Justin Agoras, who was acting for the mother, or Jenny Beck, who was acting for the mother as well. We wanted an opportunity to say, we've got to change this. And so it's no accident in the judgment that there was a commitment to the president to this. And I'm going to read it out because I want to get the terms right. I want to get it from the judgment because I want this to be followed up. I don't want to be kicked into the long grass because we're just at the interregnum stage moving from the old to the new in terms of the president who's the most senior family judge. And he said this. At the court's request, the legal teams representing the mother and why have proposed that the Family Justice Council be invited to establish a working group to investigate whether a more proportionate and less costly alternative to a full Part 18 application may be provided as an appropriate procedural vehicle for cases of this nature, recognising this isn't just one. The hope is that the process would address gatekeeping, for example, by a high court judge, allocation, funding in light of difficulties in accessing exceptional funding, process, and potential remedies. I'm grateful for this proposal, which has my support and which I'll now pass on to the Family Justice Council for consideration. I have never seen that in a judgment before because it's recognising that systems failed, but that must now be followed through. So we need accountability in terms of when is this happening, who's taking charge, what's the time scale for telling us what the process is, when will it come into effect? Because we can't allow children and unfairly blamed parents to languish in a situation where they don't have the income, the opportunity, or the route to secure injustice, justice rather, for injustice wrought. That's my closing message. When the court system has failed, we can't rely on the court system to remedy. We must have alternatives. This is an alternative, it needs to happen. Amazing.
SPEAKER_03I think the other thing that I would add is just how important it is for parents that are going through this, or indeed even children that are going through this, to research their experts. So if it is proposed that there's going to be an expert appointed, take a step back and think to yourself: why do I need an expert in this case? Why do I need a psychological assessment? Does my child need to go through a psychological assessment? And what are the questions that this expert is being asked to opine upon? What we often refer to as a letter of instruction. And I can't stress enough how important it is to scrutinize that information and make sure that the expert is not being led to reach particular conclusions based on the information that's contained within those documents or within the court material. And then, of course, important to look at who is the expert actually, as Claire mentioned. Are they unregulated? Are they regulated experts? Scrutinize their CV. Look them up, see whether they've appeared in other cases. Judgments that are publicly available are just that, publicly available. They are free. So people should, you know, Google them. I mean, it sounds obvious, but I can't stress enough just how important that is to really understand whether they come from a flavour of parental alienation or otherwise. And if you believe you are about to be assessed for parental alienation, then I would encourage you to read the Family Justice Council guidance on parental alienating behaviours and really again consider whether you do need an expert assessment on allegations of alienating behaviours because the courts now say that's a factual decision, so that's for the judge to decide upon. And equally, if you've experienced domestic abuse and you're concerned that the family courts are not taking that seriously, as Joe mentioned, it's incredibly important to make sure you get expert representation to robustly put that before the judge. And the same with any social workers that you might be meeting, or if you're meeting with police officers and other agencies, to highlight what the concerns are as best as you possibly can.
SPEAKER_01And that's a really, really good point. I think a lot of us, and I know for my personal experience, if you're you are a survivor of abuse, you tend to give away your power and ask your lawyer, barrister, anyone else to make a decision for you. And you kind of trust in a process because you sort of bow down to the authority of that process. And it is intimidating, you know, as Joe touched upon, and courts can be terrifying, to be honest, for adults, let alone the the children that we've talked about today. So I think we sort of a lot of the things that I've seen, people are trusting the process, trusting the experts that have been recommended, trusting the lawyers going to know what they're doing, even though it might not be their particular niche area of expertise. So it's really, really good advice. Um, Claire, any final thoughts from you?
SPEAKER_04No, I suppose for me it's it's just to your listeners. I mean, firstly, those who may not be aware of that situation and what's been happening. So I think it's really important people understand just the scale of what's happening in the family court. Um, but for those listening who may be personally impacted, I think just a reassurance message. You know, firstly, the most important thing is to get good support. I'm sure you've got links to really good support services that they can look up afterwards and try and access. And as Charlotte and Joe says, it's getting all that information so they can make informed decisions, don't just rely on what you're being told. You'll have to check it and get it verified yourself and take an active part in that, which I know is really challenging when you're trying to work your way through trauma as well and dealing with all of that. Um, but also just a positive message that it is getting out there. We're certainly not where we were 10 years ago. Um, and I think thanks to the role of the investigative journalists that I've talked about earlier, thanks to the work of Joe, Charlotte, and so many others challenging these cases, we are really pushing on a door for much-needed reform. And there's such a big group of us working together now and trying to drive that. So I'm confident and hopeful we have a new president coming and working very closely. I work very closely with government, really trying to push this, and we do have a lot of support looking at how we can reform the family court. So I hope we will make some really good progress.
SPEAKER_03Can I just say finally, to add to um the uh final comments from Claire and Jo, I want to stress just how important it is to have a family justice bill, and I just want to close on that. That the Children Act, however well-intentioned, dates back to 1989. I was one at the time when that came into force. Showing off. You know, showing off. And marital rape was legal, being gay was a criminal offence. The Children Act doesn't actually identify domestic abuse in and of itself, nor define it. The law very much, in my view, is outdated. And whilst Claire and others, including Jess Phillips, and we could name very many other supporters of family justice reform, have tried their best, and my goodness, have they worked hard to achieve legislative and policy change in family courts. It's not enough. We can't keep dealing with lacunas through reform and changes to the family procedurals, other forms of guidance. We need a structured change to legislation to set it out very clearly what should and shouldn't be happening in family courts.
SPEAKER_01Well said. I mean, thank you, all of you. I mean, guys, this has been an incredible episode. I know my listeners will have been moved, and I think this is much, much needed. I'm so honoured to have all three of you in. You all mean a lot to me. I really admire all the work you're doing, and I'm sure my listeners can hear the passion and the drive that the three of you have to helping and protecting people going through this process. So thank you for me for everything you're doing and for being fabulous guests today. That's it for today's episode. Please like, follow, subscribe, all that good stuff. But we're going to be coming back with episode two, part two of this series, where we're going to be diving even deeper, and I'm going to be asking questions about the conflict of interest that is in the system when you are going through these child removals in private court proceedings as well. If any of this has been difficult, and I know for some of you it will have been, please do check out all the support we have in the show notes. Do come on the free support groups that my accredited coaches run because they are specialists precisely in this field to give you some emotional help and support. You're not alone. Please know you are not alone. I know it feels like it sometimes, but you're not. I'm grateful for you being here, and I look forward to seeing you on our next episode.
SPEAKER_00That's it for today's episode of Heartbreak to Happiness. Don't forget to subscribe and leave a review to win a free ticket to Sara's virtual Heartbreak to Happiness retreat. This is a transformative combination of live webinars with Sara herself, coupled with her empowering online video program designed to help you cope better with your breakup and start feeling happy again. Thank you and join us again on the next episode for another dose of Heartbreak to Happiness.