The Court of Appeal dismissed a mother's late appeal against care orders for three children, holding that challenges of this kind in children proceedings should normally be brought by application to the Family Court.
Key facts
- Who: Parents, local authorities and children's guardians in care proceedings where a psychologist is instructed as an expert.
- From: 12 March 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: H (Children: Expertise of Witness) [2026] EWCA Civ 249
On 12 March 2026 the Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Peter Jackson) handed down judgment in H (Children: Expertise of Witness) [2026] EWCA Civ 249. The appeal was heard on 19 February 2026 and came from the Family Court at Lincoln.
Background. Care proceedings concerning three children began in February 2022. The court approved the joint instruction of a psychologist, Mr Graham Flatman, to assess the family. He carried out interviews in May 2022, reported in June 2022 and gave evidence at the final hearing in March 2023. Her Honour Judge Gillespie made care orders that month.
When accepting instructions, Mr Flatman disclosed that he was facing a tribunal hearing after a complaint to the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) by a parent in another family matter. That disclosure was not brought to the attention of the parents or the court.
The complaint arose from unrelated proceedings in 2018. It alleged that he had accepted instructions under an order referring to him as a clinical psychologist, and had carried out a clinical psychological assessment and psychometric testing of a parent when he was not registered and/or qualified to do so. The complaint was upheld in October 2023. In April 2024 the panel found misconduct and imposed a six-month suspension.
In May 2024 the mother in this case complained to the HCPC. She applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, and for an extension of time, in September 2025.
The question. The mother argued that the expert had acted outside the limits of his expertise, so the care orders could not stand. The court noted that no other complaint was or could be made about the judge's decision. Permission to appeal out of time was granted in November 2025 because there was a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard: so that guidance could be given on the procedure to adopt in similar circumstances. The children were not to be told of the appeal, to avoid unnecessary disturbance.
The decision. The appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that a party who seeks to bring a challenge of this kind in children proceedings should normally do so by application to the Family Court rather than by seeking to appeal.
Good practice. The court said it was a departure from good practice that there was no Part 25 application and that the parents were not consulted about the identity of the expert. It endorsed the guidance given in Re C and Re Y. It said it would be good practice, before a potential expert is appointed, to ask them whether they hold an HCPC protected title and, if so, what it is. It said the "registered or chartered" requirement should only be departed from where there are clear reasons, which should be set out in a short judgment.
What this means for parents and others involved in care proceedings
The Court of Appeal has said that a challenge to an expert's expertise in children proceedings should normally be made by application to the Family Court, not by appeal.
The court also described it as good practice, before a psychologist is appointed as an expert, to ask whether they hold an HCPC protected title and, if so, what it is. It treated the lack of a Part 25 application and of consultation with the parents about the expert's identity as a departure from good practice.
Anyone concerned about an expert's qualifications in their own case should get legal advice promptly, as this case involved an appeal brought out of time.
Sources
- H (Children: Expertise of Witness) [2026] EWCA Civ 249, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 12 March 2026