Mr Hibbert, a former family court psychiatrist has, fresh from a Fitness to Practice Hearing over allegations of misconduct, filed an application with the court to intervene in the case of a mother who blew the whistle on what she felt were concerning practices at Tadpole Cottage, where Hibbert worked.
Interveners can ask to be joined to a case if they feel that their interests will be affected by the proceedings in question, however they cannot have a material interest in the case. Interveners’ interests can be public or private. Public interests naturally involve the public at large who might be affected by the outcome of a case. Private interests as you might imagine, focus on individual interests arising from a case. In family law, for example, interveners are quite common place in ancillary relief disputes, where financial interests may involve Trustees, or even parents of the separating couple. Intervention is quite common in human rights cases, where organisations like human rights charities, and even government bodies might intervene. But interventions in public family law cases are still quite rare.
It’s an unusual state of affairs. The rules surrounding interveners in public family law are not clear at all, with the Civil Procedure Rules appearing not to apply to all family matters, and little else by way of guidance to offer the transparency and clarity needed on this practice. The family law case in question, too, seems fraught with ambiguity.
In April of this year, Hibbert requested to be joined to the mother’s case as an intervener in order to secure access to documents held by a current party to the proceedings, a Local Authority involved with the case. At the time of writing, the hearing to discuss the application for intervention has not yet taken place.
We can however, now reveal why Hibbert has chosen to apply to the court in this mother’s case to be joined as an intervener. Since requesting permission to engage in an intervention, Hibbert has asked for the request to be amended, so that an NHS Trust might also have access to documents being used in the case. Hibbert made this request after he filed a complaint against medical professionals and colleagues who actively disagreed with his practice. Hibbert alleges that the complaints body (The Trust he seeks to join to the case) cannot process his complaint without seeing these documents first.
Interveners typically may join a case to act as a witness for either the appellant or the respondent, and to offer the court assistance on issues in dispute by providing a broader context and understanding of those issues, but they may also join without playing an active role at all in the proceedings. It seems then, that Mr Hibbert may have no interest in being a part of these proceedings, and hopes only to secure various documents for his own external matter – the complaint he has lodged against former colleagues.
In order for Hibbert to be successful in his application to intervene, he will need to submit evidence which shows that his matter is connected to the case at hand and may well have to show that his involvement may somehow enrich the proceedings. The lack of guidance on these issues makes pinpointing the boundaries of third party intervention in public family cases an awkward affair, but it will be down to the judge to consider whether the request is appropriate and falls within the current guidelines.
Hibbert’s request to intervene has been blighted by a concerning series of facts. It appears that he initially filed a complaint with the GMC against one medical colleague because she advised the mother in this case to contact the GMC after the professional disagreed with his diagnosis of the mother. The colleague was a consultant psychiatrist who had evaluated the mother and taken the view that she did not suffer from any mental health conditions. The GMC in turn threw out Hibbert’s complaint. Undeterred, Hibbert has now filed a fresh complaint, this time with the Trust whom he now seeks to join to his request to intervene. To date, Hibbert’s formal complaint involves not one, but three medical professionals.
Prior to filing these complaints, Hibbert’s Fitness to Practice Hearing at the GMC was also riddled with complications. That hearing was due to run its course in good time, but as the media released details of the mother’s case and Hibbert’s involvement, an increasing number of parents came forward to complain about Mr Hibbert and his practice at the two centres where he worked. The GMC had to delay the hearing in order to process all the information they had received.
Noteworthy too is recent written confirmation by the GMC that Hibbert is no longer registered as a practicing medical professional.
The next court hearing is scheduled to take place this month and it will be interesting to note how the judge perceives the application to intervene and what evidence, if any, Mr Hibbert produces to justify his request. It is still unclear as to why Mr Hibbert has chosen to go about trying to access these documents in this way when there may be other ways of gaining access to these files. Unfortunately, we do not know enough about intervention in public family law cases to know whether such a request is appropriate but we did have a thought about possible motives for the request. Given that Mr Hibbert will need to make oral submissions to the court and provide evidence to the judge justifying his request, we can’t help but wonder whether he is simply hoping to taint the proceedings and lobby the judge and interested parties in the case. After all, the mother in this case did raise concerns about Mr Hibbert, and he appears to be systematically targeting all those who questioned his methods in practice, parents and professional colleagues alike.
Whatever the truth may be, we very much hope that the mother’s right to a fair hearing is not compromised, and that the intervention process will not be abused by those who simply wish to sway proceedings and further their own interests.
Thank you to our brave mum for updating us on the case.
Jonathan James said:
There must be a public interest that professionals/experts would feel free to give the court their unambiguous opinion on material matters the court is adjudicating on. As a result, to allow the release of those opinions to pursue a complaint against the expert would deter them from giving voice to their opinion in the first place. For this reason, the court must surely refuse?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Honestly Jonathan, I’m in un-chartered territory here and I have more questions than answers so I’m open to all views 🙂 I do wonder though whether intervention is actually necessary or appropriate for this scenario.
LikeLike
Ragnvald said:
It is not so much the opinions of such experts that parties are concerned about, but the conduct and poor professional practices of those experts in collecting information and evaluating such information to form such opinions.
Would you not feel aggrievd if you had a one hour chat to a psychiatrist and that psychiatrist then labelled you as mentally ill, with all of the accompanying social stigmas and difficulties when seeking employment etc, and gave that opinion to a Court and which resulted in your child being taken from you and you were prevented from ever seeing your child again until 18 years of age?.
And the psychiatrist was giving opinions based on research studies which lacked scientifically conducted reasearch and may even have been rejected by, or at the least subject to considerable dispute, within the relevamt professional community?.
Would you not feel aggrieved if a psychologist or CAFCASS worker who had never conducted a statutory child abuse investigation, but may only have been one of several participating professionals in such investigations, gave a singular opinion that your child had or had not been abused.?.
These are almost daily occurrences in the Family Courts and parties are rightly aggrieved that the conduct and malpractices of such experts is frequently found to be seriously wanting. Such parties, and often their children can thereafter suffer immense emotional and psychological harm to their person, and to their reputations, and should therefore have the right to seek redress and compensation for such harms inflicted by those experts.
LikeLike
Phill Ferreira said:
Reblogged this on The Story of my Twin Boys , Oliver and Oscar Ferreira.
LikeLike
nojusticeforparents said:
I would have thought a subject access request under dpa 1998 should be enough for him to obtain any information regarding himself . NO wait Mr Hibbert seems to think he has special privileges .
LikeLike
Natasha said:
It all just seems so odd.
LikeLike
nojusticeforparents said:
As for a fair hearing. The mother has been diagnosed with trauma from the last hearing where he was involved and not only does she have to face the stress of the hearing but also has to face the man who helped cause the trauma in first place. Its hardly very fair is it that he uses the mothers child and proceedings for his own gain but thats mr hibbert . I remember a book on his shelf in his office it was called something like ‘the games people play ‘ in reference to mind games.
The mother has a whole list of experts she has seen since then who disagreed with his diagnosis in fact that diagnonsense has never even been thought of as a possibilty since.
Im wondering who will be next on hibberts hit list !!!!!!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
xxx
LikeLike
nojusticeforparents said:
i still wonder how hibbert was able to find out about the proceedings and the judge presiding over the case before the mother was even made aware
LikeLike
Natasha said:
That’s an interesting point.
LikeLike
nojusticeforparents said:
I also wonder if he has removed himself from the register so that noone can complain to the gmc about his behaviour post hearing and whether after he has pursued these current matters whether he will apply to rejoin and he called the mother manipulative !!!
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Deregistering won’t stop parties from suing him but anything’s possible…
LikeLike
Ragnvald said:
A lesson for Courts and mental health professionals in the use of mental heath diagnoses.
“The DSM in evidence
Its use as a standard reference for the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders has resulted in the DSM commonly being referred to in the opinion evidence of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. Given its status as a widely recognised resource in the formation of expert opinions in clinical settings, this is unsurprising. Consequently, lawyers involved in procuring opinion evidence and in the examination or cross-examination of mental health professionals require an understanding of its clinical use and limitations in forensic settings. Without a working knowledge of the correct use and limitations of the DSM, the probative value of the opinion evidence may not be demonstrated adequately, or may even be distorted through inapt cross-examination or submissions. Also, the court might be misdirected as to the significance and weight to be given to the evidence. Opportunities appropriately to test the evidence may be missed.
Curial acceptance and limitations
Previous editions of the DSM have been widely accepted by the courts as a foundation of expert opinion evidence on mental disorders. Although not treated as the only basis upon which the opinion evidence of mental health professionals may be founded, DSM-IV has been referred to as “universally respected”.10 In one recent case, a report of a (putative) mental health professional which did not include reference to the DSM was described as not demonstrating “any actual reputable testing”.11
Importantly, however, superior and intermediate courts have recognised the need for a considered and appropriately critical approach in relying upon evidence based upon the DSM criteria, the application of which relies significantly upon clinical judgments by mental health professionals.12 The DSM criteria are not for the court to construe and apply, and a court ought not to supplant the role of the mental health professional in assessing whether a person meets criteria for a mental disorder.13
Judicial reference to or application of the DSM independently of opinion evidence or to make findings contrary to opinion evidence without the parties having the opportunity to address them may amount to procedural unfairness.14 The widespread use of the DSM and the frequency with which courts appear to receive expert evidence formulated with reference to the DSM does not give it the character of a notorious publication of which a court would be expected to take judicial notice or make independent reference.15
DSM-5 itself contains a cautionary statement for forensic use,16 highlighting that there are risks and limitations in the use of the clinical resource to reach legal conclusions.17 It also warns against the use of DSM-5 by persons other than sufficiently trained medical professionals to assess for the presence of a mental disorder. It is not specifically designed to guide lawyers.18 The cautionary statement is an important reminder that DSM criteria are designed specifically to guide the clinical judgment of mental health professionals. This requirement for specialised knowledge commonly is the very basis for the admissibility of opinion evidence from mental health professionals.19”.
http://www.liv.asn.au/Practice-Resources/Law-Institute-Journal/Archived-Issues/LIJ-November-2013/Apply-with-care–DSM-5-and-expert-evidence
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Thank you, R.
LikeLike
nojusticeforparents said:
the nurse and one of the drs he is seeking documents for were never even asked to write anything or submit anything to the proceedings in the first place
LikeLike
Dana said:
It seems you can be declared mentally feeble or have a personality disorder for the purpose of the family courts so they can take your child away but if you want treatment by NHS, as very little is there, there is nothing wrong with you. However if you want to pay for your own treatment that is another matter entirely! Even if you jump through all the hoops, going for “treatment” you still have to convince the very people who declared you “mad” in the first place that you are well enough to have your child returned to you! Its not surprising that sane people are totally stressed and behave differently in an effort to “prove” their sanity! It would be enough to drive you insane and then those people who assessed you can point the finger and declare, “Told you she was mad!”
LikeLike
nojusticeforparents said:
dana that is exactly what happened to me diagnosed in courts yet nhs said i didnt meet criteria for treatment long story xxxx
LikeLike
Ragnvald said:
Yes it is a frequent occrrenc e in Family Courts especially in Australia under the now notorious “Shared Parenting” laws. It is quite remarkable how mothers can provide loving care for their children for 2, 4, 6 10, and even 12 years, many enduring violent assault in their own homes, (including rape and kicks in the stomach during pregnancy) often on a daily basis by a father, and there is no criticism nor concern regarding their care of their children over all those years; Yet when those mothers dare to mention such violent assaults and abuses in Family Court proceedings, the Court Consultant psychiatrists/ psychologists suddenly determines that they are mentally ill or deluded or have fabricated the assaults and abuses and are a danger to their children.
Where does that fit into objective examination of evidence and rational, logical thinking and a reasoned conclusion.?. Notably those mental health professionals do not disclose that many of the “mental illnesses” they diagnose have no basis in scientifically conducted research, and fail to adher to the principles of professional practice of their profession in making such diagnoses. i.e. to conduct a through and comprehensive fact-finding and data analysis and they usually make such diagnoses simply on the basis of a one-hour chat in their office. Such practice is more akin to crystal ball gazing than professional practice.
LikeLike
Pingback: Interveners in Public Family Law Cases – Researching Reform for Jordans Family Law | Researching Reform
nojusticeforparents said:
i agree xxx
LikeLike
Dana said:
They redo the DSM book every year to pull in more people yet offer no treatment! One wonders how these people raised their children years ago! Some good some bad! Not everyone is going to have a wonderful, plain sailing life, free from stress and worries, if any actually do but if children grow up in their own homes, unless the parents are criminally harming their children, they are still better off and grow more resilient in the face of adversity! They, the systems professionals, all know this but continue on the same path, leaving broken families & damaged children in their wake! If they LAs looked through their books at the kids in care at least half could go back home, more if they included grandparent’s! Let us not forget that kids are more not less vulnerable in care than if left at home and all the kids want is to go home!
LikeLike
southernfamilyaid said:
wakey wakey DSM is American, UK under ICD10 soon to be 11…..and its every ten years not every year…
LikeLike
Pingback: Unregistered Doctor’s Application To Intervene In Case Strongly Opposed By All Parties | Researching Reform