[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> MB (Expert's Court Report) [2015] EWFC B178 (18 September 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B178.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B178

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT MEDWAY

		Medway Civil & Family Court Anchorage House 47-67 High Street Chatham Kent ME4 4DW

Her Honour Judge Lazarus:

1. I am dealing today with a case relating to H. He was born in early 2007, and in relation to whom a Final Care Order was made on the 17^th December 2013. This is an ex tempore judgment given at the end of a case management hearing due to my serious concerns arising in relation to an application relating to a purported expert's court report.
2. The current applications in relation to H are as follows. An application by his Mother, Ms MB, to discharge H's Care Order which was issued on the 29^th July 2015, and an application dated the 18^th August 2015 for increased contact with H. And there is a further application dated the 3^rd September 2015 by the Local Authority, Kent County Council, for a Placement Order in relation to H.
3. This hearing is a directions hearing and, in particular, is dealing with the mother's application for permission to admit the report of a Dr Ludwig F Lowenstein, which is dated the 22^nd May 2015.
4. I have, by the directions that I have made today, ensured that all of the applications run concurrently. I have ordered that any Part 25 applications shall be issued within two weeks, by the 2^nd October 2015; that the Local Authority has permission to file further evidence, if so advised, by the same date, the 2^nd October 2015; that there should be position statements filed by the parties by the 9^th October 2015; and the mother has permission by the same date to file any letter from the psychotherapist from whom she has been receiving treatment with her position statement of the 9^th October. And I intend to list this for further directions as soon as possible after the 9^th October.
5. The core issues leading to the Final Orders that were made in 2013 were concerns as to the mother's ability to meet H's complex needs, H suffering to a degree from autism, and in particular that her own emotional and personality needs were resulting in a pattern of emotional and physical and developmental neglect, and there was a serious incident of lack of supervision in June of 2013.
6. Within the recent history the mother and her partner Mr P have undergone a parenting assessment conducted by Mr Ian Scrivens and dated the 20^th March 2015, initiated by the Local Authority, Mr Scrivens being an experienced social worker. And he undertook that assessment over a number of sessions with Ms MB and Mr P, and indeed met with H at his foster placement, and used the Department of Health guide for social workers undertaking a comprehensive assessment.
7. That assessment does not recommend that H is returned to his mother's care and that, while there are some positives, there are ongoing concerns and, indeed, H's enhanced needs would suggest that the couple would find it difficult to meet those needs in the light of their own difficulties.
8. Ms MB has told me today that, following receipt of that report, she and Mr P attempted to challenge this by seeking to dispute it with the Local Authority and to bring their concerns to the attention of the independent reviewing officer, presumably at looked after children review meetings for H.
9. She also tells me that she visited her former solicitor and was told that she could perhaps seek a further report from another expert, and she also tells me that she then approached Dr Lowenstein in an attempt to understand some of the issues and discussed the parenting assessment with him. She further tells me that Dr Lowenstein himself then suggested and, as she put it, offered to do a court report for them. And she confirmed, upon my careful enquiry, that it was he who had suggested this. I note of course that this report was obtained prior to the start of any of the proceedings that I have now before me, it being dated May 2015.
10. I note that Dr Lowenstein practices from Southern England Psychological Services based at Allington Manor, Eastleigh, Hampshire, and puts himself forward as, and I am reading from the third page of his report: a chartered psychologist and associate fellow of the British Psychological Society, as a qualified clinical and educational psychologist, and that he also works in the area of forensic psychology and he is registered with the health professional council, HCPC, practising in the areas of clinical, educational and forensic psychology, and having published widely in both clinical and educational psychology as well as forensic psychology. He sets out details in an extended profile in appendix 1 to his report.
11. He sets out his background training from an Australian university and a PhD from London University, that he has clinical training and a diploma in clinical and educational psychology from the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital, which qualifications were obtained in the 1960s, and that he held a former post as the Principal of Allington Manor, a specialist unit for disturbed young people. He has formerly been Chief Educational Psychologist for Hampshire and has advised and lectured in various parts of the world on the subject of setting up such centres.
12. He has twice been elected to serve as Director of the International Council of Psychologists and was their President from July 2011 to 2013, and claims to be currently practising as an independent expert witness for the courts and to write reports in the areas of educational and forensic psychology as well as in personal injury and criminal cases. He claims to work and advise in the area of family problems such as parental alienation, and he also claims to have a private practice where he treats people for a variety of psychological problems.
13. There are a number of concerns that occurred immediately to the Local Authority, to the Children's Guardian and indeed to the Court, evident from what he calls his 'psychodiagnostic report' on Ms MB.
14. The first such concern is that he claims, under the very first heading, that this report is for the court and is carried out by an independent expert witness of many years experience. However, there were no ongoing court proceedings at the time. I am very concerned that he suggested that a 'court report' should be obtained, and suggested it to the mother of a child in foster care, and a mother who evidently has ambitions for her child either to be returned to her care or to have contact with that child and, as such, is vulnerable to any suggestion that she might be assisted by these means, notwithstanding that there were no court proceedings on foot at the time.
15. A second concern is that he purported to carry out a 'court report' without being granted permission to see nor having sight of any of the previous court papers, without the required process of permission from a court within proceedings being sought, and without there being an agreed letter of instruction approved by the court setting out the factors upon which he ought to comment. This is in obvious contravention of the relevant provisions found in the Family Proceedings Rules 2010 r.25, Practice Direction 25A-F and the Children And Families Act 2014 s13, and falls foul of the very clear guidance provided in Re A (Family Proceedings: Expert Witness) [2001] 1 FLR 723. Experts should not accept instructions unless explicitly informed that the court has given them its permission and of the terms set out in the court order permitting their instruction.
16. And further that he did this when he either ought to have known or knows very well, given the claims he makes in relation to his expertise, his experience, his qualifications and his apparent provision of court reports, that there was a very grave risk that such a report, prepared in this way, would be wholly inappropriate for the purposes of court proceedings and would therefore risk not being admissible within those proceedings and/or of having very little weight that could be sensibly attached to it.
17. I further note that his report mentions, at paragraph 1.7, that the mother has been improved to a considerable degree as a result of the psychotherapeutic sessions she has had with her psychotherapist, and he goes on in his conclusions, at page 10, paragraph 3, and page 11, paragraph 9, to confirm his opinion that she has undoubtedly been helped considerably by her psychotherapy and has learned a great deal as a result of her psychotherapeutic sessions. However, he also states that unfortunately there is no report from the psychotherapist as to her view of how her client benefited or not from those psychotherapeutic sessions.
18. It is therefore evident on the face of this report that Dr Lowenstein is not only, in the same report, acknowledging the lack of information from the psychotherapist but also purporting to be able to come to conclusions in relation to its impact, notwithstanding the lack of that information, and also notwithstanding that he had no information as to how the mother presented prior to such sessions. It is, therefore, a report that within its own content betrays inconsistencies and internal contradiction, and an obvious lack of rigorous analysis.
19. Additionally, Dr Lowenstein appears to be primarily an educational and general psychologist as revealed by a close reading of his qualifications, posts and experience. As such his instruction would not have been supported by the Local Authority or the Children's Guardian in any event for that reason, and the Court would be most unlikely to accept that he would be the appropriate expert to consider mother's complex personality issues.
20. I find this report, and the mode by which it has been suggested to the mother and has come about, to be highly unsatisfactory, likely to be in breach of professional codes of conduct, certainly lacking in any observation of the rules that apply to obtaining court reports within family proceedings, and that it is not a 'court report' as Dr Lowenstein claims and would not be admissible. In the circumstances, I gain the very strong impression that the vulnerability of this mother may have been exploited by Dr Lowenstein, who charged her £550 for this report in the circumstances which I have just outlined.
21. I am also aware that Dr Lowenstein has been criticised in another Court by another judge in very similar circumstances.
22. It is for these reasons that I intend to obtain the transcript of this judgment, and I have asked the Children's Guardian to ensure that the transcript is sent to Dr Lowenstein so that his attention is drawn to the significant concerns expressed by this Court about his failure to observe the rules and requirements of reporting for the court and the inappropriateness of the steps that he has taken in this case and, indeed, the inadequacies of his report's content, even on a superficial reading, that are evident to all concerned.
23. I am also going to invite the Children's Guardian to consider reporting this matter to the professional bodies that Dr Lowenstein claims to belong to, and I also intend, in an anonymised version of this judgment, to publish this judgment, albeit that the names of professionals involved, and Dr Lowenstein in particular, will not be anonymised in accordance with guidance and case law. And, as I say, I consider Dr Lowenstein's approach to this Mother's situation to have failed in any purported attempt to assist her but to have been inappropriate and potentially exploitative, and certainly of no help to her within her applications.
24. The Mother has very wisely, following the discussion of the concerns in Court today, not chosen to pursue her application for this report to be admitted and will be seeking legal advice and applying to the court for an independent expert following the appropriate rules under Part 25 of the Family Proceedings Rules and Practice Direction 25 in due course.
25. That concludes my judgment.