Re L (Psychologist – Duty To The Court): FD 20 Dec 2011

The court had made findings of non-accidental injury caused by the parents. A psychologist called in to assist the court was sympathetic to the parents invited the court to reconsider its findings of fact.
Held: The expert had gone beyond her remit and also, on other elements outside her area of expertise. It would be unsafe to rely on her report. The mother’s continuing denial made any risk assessment difficult, and it was not possible to consider that she was other than a risk to her children. Determined and persistent efforts had been made to obstruct court orders. The court made orders appropriate to its findings.


Bellamy J


[2011] EWHC B29 (Fam)




Family Procedure Rules 2010 25.3, Children Act 1989 1


England and Wales


CitedIn re L (A Child: Media Reporting) FD 18-Apr-2011
The local authority had intervened on suspecting physical abuse. L was placed with the maternal grandmother who took L to Ireland before care proceedings were commenced. The Irish court found him to have been wrongfully removed, and orders were made . .
CitedIn re B (A Child) SC 19-Nov-2009
The Court considered a decision granting to a father the care of his child who appeared to have become happily settled with the maternal grandmother.
Held: The grandmother’s appeal succeeded. The judge and court of appeal had misunderstood the . .
CitedJ v C (An Infant) HL 19-Feb-1969
The House sought to construe the meaning of the words ‘shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration’. Lord MacDermott said: ‘it seems to me that they must mean more than that the child’s welfare is to be treated as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460537