In a recent decision, the High Court of Ireland considered whether a ‘single joint expert’ in family law proceedings could have an ongoing therapeutic role in the case. A father brought a motion in such proceedings, seeking to dispense with the consent of the mother for the children to continue attending a professional for ongoing therapeutic care.
In the case, BC v. PK [2020] IEHC 432, a professional (“Professor S”) had been appointed under section 47 of the Family Law Act 1995, which provides for reports to be prepared for the court. The Professor prepared more than one report in relation to the family, and family members attended on a number of occasions. Following the settlement, the mother indicated that she did not wish to have any further involvement with the therapist:
“It is abundantly clear that the mother has no desire to see Professor S. involved further with her or the children. The mother is entitled to have a view in that regard despite the fact that Professor S. is well known to the court and has produced in this case and many others excellent reports. He is extremely helpful in providing practical solutions to difficult problems concerning custody and access issues with clear recommendations at the end of most of his reports. I cannot alter the mother’s view or perception of Professor S. and his involvement even if she may be entirely incorrect in the view which she holds.”
Mr Justice Jordan took the view that the father’s motion was ‘unwise’, and commented:
“It seems to me that as a matter of practice, it is unwise and undesirable to have a person who is the author of a report prepared pursuant to a court order made under s. 47, or similar provisions in other legislation, involved in subsequent counselling or therapeutic care of the children or child, the subject matter of the s. 47 report.”
He went on to say:
“[A] person involved in counselling should be different to a person preparing an independent expert report under s. 47 of the Family Law Act 1995. This is all the more so when allowing Professor S. to be involved in a counselling or therapeutic role although he has previously prepared reports under s. 47 could create problems in the future which are entirely avoidable. These children are young and there is still significant conflict between the parents involved in their co-parenting regime. It is notbeyond the bounds of possibility that a dispute concerning custody or access could arise at a stage in the future when the Court would be asked to direct a s. 47 report. If Professor S. is at that time still engaged in the preparation of such reports, then he would be the obvious choice to prepare a report if the Court required one in the future. But if, in the intervening period, he has been involved in counselling and in the therapeutic care of the children, then: (a) a significant difficulty arises concerning he giving evidence about his previous involvement; and (b) a real, and insurmountable difficulty would exist concerning his appointment for the preparation of a report after being involved in counselling and therapeutic care of the children.”
The father’s application was refused.The judgment can be read here.