A mother who did not see her children for nearly six years after they were taken away by the family courts has been reunited with her son after the flawed evidence used in her case was overturned.
An assessment by an unregulated psychologist led to “extraordinary” and “draconian” orders that effectively terminated her relationship with her children, lawyers told the high court.
A district judge followed the recommendations of the psychologist Melanie Gill, which included that Erin* had turned her daughter and son against their father and should be banned from seeing them.
Gill also advised that there was no need to investigate cross-allegations of domestic abuse by the parents. This meant that claims of serious physical and sexual assault made by the mother against the father were not examined.
In December 2019 the court ordered the children’s removal from their mother and granted the father sole custody. They were nine and 12 at the time. Erin did not see or speak to them again until last year.
But last month England’s most senior family judge “set aside” the court’s original findings based on the conclusions of Gill, who claims to have acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases.
It is the second time in six months that findings in a case in which she has given evidence have been dismissed by the high court.
At the 29 January hearing, it was heard how the ruling had left Erin feeling as if she had “a noose around her neck for six years”. In an interview with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism she said: “It wasn’t just me. The children were cut off from all their family and friends. They had 50% of their identity stripped away overnight.”
It was argued that the children had been silenced by the process set in motion by Gill’s evidence, even when they raised allegations of abuse.
Lawyers told the high court that errors and missed opportunities by every professional involved in the case had failed to protect the siblings.
A previous attempt by the mother to appeal was blocked and she launched a fresh application seven months ago.
The case took a dramatic turn in November when her teenage son Dylan* ran away from his father’s home and hired his own solicitor. After a period in foster care he was later reunited with his mother for their first Christmas together in six years.
Unusually, the teenager – represented by his own legal team – was in court for his mother’s legal bid overseen by the president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane.
The 15-year-old sat at the front of the courtroom as Jo Delahunty KC told McFarlane how her young client had lost all trust in professionals and become lonely, fearful and isolated in his father’s care.
McFarlane made a new order for the boy to live with his mother. He is yet to hand down his judgment, which is expected to map out a route for similarly affected families who wish to return their case to court.
McFarlane said: “Melanie Gill considers this some kind of vendetta against her. This is far bigger than one person. It’s about the court properly engaging with allegations and cross-allegations.”
After the hearing, Dylan said that he felt heard at last, adding: “I’m so grateful to be home with my mum finally and to feel happy again”.
The children’s father, who has consistently denied the allegations against him, chose not to attend the January hearing. The daughter, who is now 18, was not party to the case.
Erin’s legal team cited “compelling” new information in bringing the successful challenge. This included guidance from December 2024, which said the courts should not use experts to look for “parental alienation” – the idea that a child has rejected one parent because they have been manipulated by the other.
The guidance also stated that psychologists assessing families on behalf of the courts should be regulated. However, judges are permitted to appoint whom they wish, including experts who are not regulated.
Gill asserts that she is well qualified to perform the role of expert witness in family proceedings and that she has years of specialist training and expertise.
The government is working with the committee that makes rules for the family courts to introduce a ban on unregulated experts, after a public consultation last year, which received 60 submissions.
*Names have been changed to protect the identities of those involved
