Welcome to the week. We would like to tell you it’s sunny outside, but it’s too dark to tell. And we imagine once sunrise sets in, rain will follow. This is England in January after all.
But to make your Monday more memorable, our question of the week follows on from our post on the BBC’s next Panorama programme, “I want my baby back.”
The programme airs tonight at 9pm, and focuses on the world of adoption, specifically: whether the evidence used to decide whether to remove children and place them in new homes is always up to par.
Our question this week then, is this: is the quality of expert evidence in the family justice system good enough?
Researching Reform 
The problem with “expert evidence” especially from the psychobabble charlatans is that before they see the parents they read highly prejudicial reports from social workers; and relying on those as “gospel truth” they come to conclusions well in advance of meeting the parent(s).Also the selection is mean’t to be a joint one but parents who represent themselves are routinely denied any say in who is selected or what questions are put for the expert to answer.These questions themelves can be highly prejudicial.eg Does the mother fully realise the danger she represents to her child?
LikeLike
Yes, I am always shocked by decisions which are made without meeting all the relevant family members in question or doing so on only a couple of occasions.
LikeLike
What is the alternative?
LikeLike
Hi Kip,
Not sure if your question is for FA or myself, and whether if for myself it relate directly to the Question posed on Question It! or the comment I made in reply to FA……!
Either way, I’ll try to answer down my end. I think we need experts. What we don’t need are people who say they are experts but in fact are not. people who don’t have the qualifications or whose training is poor. At worst, the training is an issue – the various fields really need to step that up. At best, it’s just about lazy monitoring of professionals.
As for the process itself, we need people who actually see family members and don’t make judgements based on one side of a story or worse, on fabricated reports which fail to examine all the issues/ people involved.
In short, the system needs to get serious.
LikeLike
Remember Prof. Jane Ireland? She researched and found 2/3rd of the experts assessments were flawed and she was highly critical of the weight Judges gave them. She didn’t find much that was positive and noted that the experts were unlikely to go against their paymasters (social services) or they would not be chosen again. Since most were “Career Court Assessment Givers” rather than their chosen profession, this was most unlikely! After all all you need is a skill at reading and saying what social workers want, the ability to cut & paste, that way many can be done simutanously and no one will notice he is really a she and vice versa. You don’t even need to be qualified! You will be very well paid for leaving your ethics, morals and conscience on the doorstep!
I wonder if much has changed since her report?
LikeLike
Hi Dana, I do…. she’s an editor for my Encyclopaedia. Her report was vilified by the profession, but I stand by its findings. If there is ever a nationwide investigation into standards across the country, I think her report will come back to haunt us all.
LikeLike
The alternative to the present system is to follow that of the criminal courts where either both parties agree on a choice of expert (and the questions that the expert will be asked to answer), or each party chooses their own expert and in each case the experts are NOT prejudiced by reading biased reports from social workers in advance.
LikeLike
Hi Natasha,
The Prof. Clearly had the courage of her convictions and she would not have critisised the “experts” if she was in any doubt about her findings. She put her own integrity on the line! Its not surprising the profession vilified her, the experts involved were quite happy being paid very well to produce unsubstantiated character assassinations on any victim the social services targeted! It’s shameful they were not named and dispicable the profession didn’t kick them out as they tarnish the reputations of the Profession as a whole! Whilst they (some) are registered, did the Profession do any checks on their work for the courts? I doubt it!
LikeLike
I have never looked at this blog before and first impressions are that it is not very balanced with some sweeping statements and assumptions about experts offered with no real evidence to back up the claims.
Professor Ireland’s report was not just ‘vilified by her profession’ but the FJC also refused to publish it as it had not been peer reviewed – it apparently still hasn’t been published despite being released to the media. It was the way the report was released and the (ill-informed and rather hysterical) use the media made of it that upset some members of the profession, I think as most would agree some important points were made and there are now new Expert Witness Standards coming into force this year (although it is hard to see what stopped anyone previously from checking the experts CV, references and professional qualifications before Instructing them – this is not difficult to do and also not the job of ‘the profession’ but the job of the ’employer’ to make a 30 second check on a professional register).
I find the idea that experts are in thrall to social services paymasters somewhat bizarre and the idea that reading the evidence before seeing a family somehow eradicates the ability to listen to the parent and properly consider their account also bizarre – why? experts are generally instructed by all the parties, not social services only, and if the expert is that terrible in considering the parents evidence then decent Solicitors for parents won’t use them again.
It might be more pertinent to consider what is now happening in the Family Courts having removed (virtually) expert evidence altogether – do you think parents who are vulnerable, with possible mental health problems that could be treated with the right diagnosis and support, with learning disabilities and specialist support needs, with their own histories or abuse and neglect (often within the care system) are going to get a proper assessment of their needs and a fair shot at rehabilitation or keeping their children if the Courts refuse to allow any expert assessment at all?
Expert bashing is all very well but I suspect it obscures the reality that some of us have the capacity to think not just in black and white but in shades of grey and that that can, in my experience, lead to assessments which come out in support of a parent – maybe even help them have a strong case for rehabilitation. It might be nice to see some intelligent consideration of what makes a good expert assessment in answer to your original post?
LikeLike
Hi Irw,
Most people who blog on this forum do not make sweeping statements or assumptions about expert witnesses but rely their own experiences and taken collectively with others, add up to a flawed system.
They also try to research a subject, as I have done, regarding Prof. Jane Ireland’s report but I could not find any reference to your claims. What I found was the professional bodies for experts have taken note of her report and were responding to her teams findings. I won’t try to influence you by putting the sources down here but if you Google Professor Jane Ireland you will find the information. If you have any information that supports your stance I would be happy to see it.
Prof. Jane Ireland was tasked to research the experts assessments for the court. These expert assessments heavily influence the Judge and have far reaching, life changing consequenses and therefore should be accurate. They were not! Most were found to be flawed. Very badly flawed on all different levels! It is not “expert bashing” as you suggest, it was simply the facts. There is no place in the courts for any expert producing such flawed work! I think it was a shame that those experts found to be flawed were not named and their cases reopened!
LikeLike
I’ve listend to numerous ‘experts’ in the family ourt over the last decade. Of all the ones whose reports I’ve heard I’d only count one of them as making any sense. The other just came across as overpaid charlatans depserate to make themselves seem smart.
LikeLike
Hi Kineli, thank you for your comment. It’s certainly a large area for concern.
LikeLike
Expert EVIDENCE good enough. NO. . Why is the Guardians Report accessible to all in the SS System EXCEPT the parents. I have obtained a copy that concerned the case of my Family, it is illegal for me to have it. I waved it in ANTHONY DOUGLAS FACE after he refused to look into the falsehoods in it. I would love to find out how much EACH of these “experts” gets for their total input into a case and how many cases they have reported on.
LikeLike
Phil, you have a point. In the medical profession Surgeons have an ongoing list of the operations they do and the outcomes or any complications. If used correctly, this enables them and others to see patterns of what is effective or not. They tot up the hours they work, for expenses but there would be a tally and if their work was NHS or Private. Some of this information is available to the public. I see no reason why the same kind of thing cannot work for social workers, Guardians, experts or the Judge.
All of these people are paid by the public purse and therefore we should know. You could then see at a glance what is happening. Not long ago in America, a Judge was sent to prison for 21 years after accepting monetary bribes from a child detention centre for the supply of children from the courts to fill the facility! The judge was known as a hard liner and it went on for years. It would have been investigated and stopped much earlier if had been known all the kids were going to the same facility!
LikeLike
Thank you, all of you, for your comments.
There are, to my mind, two issues at play. The need for expert witnesses and the reality of poor practice inside the system, and how that affects this need.
The government is clearly acknowledging a lack of competence here, otherwise it would not have implemented a minimum standards policy. And whether critics like it or not, Professor Ireland’s report is validated by that fact.
One of the main triggers for poor practice is time. Huge work loads mean people cut corners. One only has to look at the growing number of disciplinary hearings across the board to see this (if you’re interested, have a look at the Legal profession’s sites on this and other professions’ regulatory bodies who all have details on malpractice hearings and tribunals).
And then we have a decreased availability of witnesses as the recent cuts make all too clear.
So what are we to do? How do we improve poor practice where it is poor and ensure that families get the kind of expert resources they deserve?
LikeLike
A request was made to the GMC.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/experts_for_the_court
LikeLike