Research claims 20% of psychologist expert witnesses in family courts "inadequately qualified"

One in five psychologists instructed to act as expert witnesses in the family courts appear to be inadequately qualified for the role on the basis of their submitted CVs, research part-funded by the Family Justice Council has claimed.

The study by the University of Central Lancashire, Evaluating Expert Witness Psychological Reports: Exploring Quality, also found that two thirds of the 126 expert reports reviewed were rated as below the expected standard. One third were rated as being between good and excellent.

The reports rated as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ were said to be characterised by a number of factors including: use of graduate or assistant psychologists to compile case background and in some cases to interview parents; overuse of psychometrics; absence of support for opinion; and making uninformed psychological statements.

Among a series of recommendations the study called on the judiciary to assess more thoroughly the competence of experts to complete specific aspects of reports.

Other key findings from the research included:

• Variability in report quality;
• 90% of instructed experts maintained no clinical practice external to the provision of expert witness work, according to information gleaned from the submitted CV; and
• In one court, all expert witness psychology reports were generated by witness companies, who take a commission for the instructions.

Professor Jane Ireland, the report’s author, said: “The crucial decisions made by family courts on issues such as the custody of children, domestic violence and sexual violence have life changing consequences. The reports produced by psychological experts can play an influential role in a judge’s final decision and yet, until now, research to assess the quality of these reports has not been conducted.”

She acknowledged some “unavoidable” limitations in a study of this nature, such as the sample size.

Professor Ireland nevertheless expressed concern at the limited stated qualifications and current clinical experience of some of the experts commissioned to provide reports.

“The under-use of recognised methods to assess risk in cases involving domestic violence, general violence and sexual violence, experts commenting on mental health and yet having no demonstrable background in that area, are significant areas worthy of further research,” she added.

Recommendations in the UCLAN report for sustaining good practice and improving report quality included:

• Expert witnesses should be registered to practice with the Health Professionals Council and have full membership of an applied division of the British Psychological Society;
• There should not be reliance on the use of expert witness commissioning companies as a marker of potential good quality reports;
• The instruction should clarify whether the expert is to conduct all aspects of the work and not delegate any part to graduate psychologists or assistants; and
• Instruction of experts should be restricted to those currently engaged in practice which is not solely limited to the provision of court reports.

Dr Heather Payne, the Chair of the Experts Committee of the Family Justice Council, said: “Despite expected methodological limitations, the sample in the study is small and no claims are made as to its representativeness, the themes identified from the assessed reports are useful in providing an initial view as to the quality of submitted expert psychological reports. As such, the report will contribute to the current debate on how best to ensure that experts used in the family courts are appropriately qualified in the specialisms most relevant to the case.

“The Family Justice Review highlighted the need for more intelligent and selective use of expert evidence in family proceedings and this study is a starting point for moving in this direction.”

She added that the Family Justice Council had argued that the cause of much unsatisfactory expert evidence in the family courts was due to poor letters of instruction from the solicitors commissioning the reports. This could lead to the expert being asked to address the wrong questions, Dr Payne said.

She insisted that flawed experts reports were unlikely to mislead the court to the extent that perverse decisions were taken but said flawed reports did not assist the court in its decision-making and there was a need for better quality control.

Philip Hoult