Skip to content

Children and Families Act 2014, Section 13 — Control of Expert Evidence and Assessments in Children Proceedings

Jurisdiction: England & Wales · Citation: Children and Families Act 2014 (c. 6), section 13 · Authoritative source: legislation.gov.uk — s.13

The statutory gatekeeper for expert evidence — including psychological assessments — in children proceedings. Critical to parental-alienation cases because most disputed PA findings depend on expert evidence, and s.13 sets the bar: the court must consider the evidence "necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly" before any expert can be instructed or any child can be psychologically assessed.

This section was at the heart of Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), the recent High Court decision on the admissibility of expert evidence in alleged-PA cases.

Verbatim text (current consolidated)

13 Control of expert evidence, and of assessments, in children proceedings.

(1) A person may not without the permission of the court instruct a person to provide expert evidence for use in children proceedings.

(2) Where in contravention of subsection (1) a person is instructed to provide expert evidence, evidence resulting from the instructions is inadmissible in children proceedings unless the court rules that it is admissible.

(3) A person may not without the permission of the court cause a child to be medically or psychiatrically examined or otherwise assessed for the purposes of the provision of expert evidence in children proceedings.

(4) Where in contravention of subsection (3) a child is medically or psychiatrically examined or otherwise assessed, evidence resulting from the examination or other assessment is inadmissible in children proceedings unless the court rules that it is admissible.

(5) In children proceedings, a person may not without the permission of the court put expert evidence (in any form) before the court.

(6) The court may give permission as mentioned in subsection (1), (3) or (5) only if the court is of the opinion that the expert evidence is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly.

(7) When deciding whether to give permission as mentioned in subsection (1), (3) or (5) the court is to have regard in particular to—

(a) any impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the welfare of the children concerned, including in the case of permission as mentioned in subsection (3) any impact which any examination or other assessment would be likely to have on the welfare of the child who would be examined or otherwise assessed,

(b) the issues to which the expert evidence would relate,

© the questions which the court would require the expert to answer,

(d) what other expert evidence is available (whether obtained before or after the start of proceedings),

(e) whether evidence could be given by another person on the matters on which the expert would give evidence,

(f) the impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the timetable for, and duration and conduct of, the proceedings,

(g) the cost of the expert evidence, and

(h) any matters prescribed by Family Procedure Rules.

(8) References in this section to providing expert evidence, or to putting expert evidence before a court, do not include references to—

(a) the provision or giving of evidence—

(i) by a person who is a member of the staff of a local authority or of an authorised applicant,

(ii) in proceedings to which the authority or authorised applicant is a party, and

(iii) in the course of the person's work for the authority or authorised applicant,

(b) the provision or giving of evidence—

(i) by a person within a description prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 94 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (suitability for adoption etc.), and

(ii) about the matters mentioned in that subsection,

© the provision or giving of evidence by an officer of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service when acting in that capacity, or

(d) the provision or giving of evidence by a Welsh family proceedings officer (as defined by section 35(4) of the Children Act 2004) when acting in that capacity.

(9) In this section—

"authorised applicant" means—

(a) the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, or

(b) a person authorised by an order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 to bring proceedings under that section;

"child" means a person under the age of 18;

"children proceedings" has such meaning as may be prescribed by Family Procedure Rules;

"the court", in relation to any children proceedings, means the court in which the proceedings are taking place;

"local authority"—

(a) in relation to England means—

(i) a county council,

(ii) a district council for an area for which there is no county council,

(iii) a London borough council,

(iv) the Common Council of the City of London, or

(v) the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and

(b) in relation to Wales means a county council or a county borough council.

(10) The preceding provisions of this section are without prejudice to sections 75 and 76 of the Courts Act 2003 (power to make Family Procedure Rules).

Why this matters for PA

  • The "necessary to resolve justly" test is the central battleground in PA cases. Targeted parents typically seek psychological assessment of the alienating parent and/or the child to evidence alienation; alienating parents resist (citing s.13(7)(a) — "impact on the welfare of the child"). The court must weigh both.
  • Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) clarified that PA is not a "syndrome" amenable to formal diagnostic testing under s.13 — the court controls who can opine on "alienating behaviours" and the qualifications required. The 2023 ruling emphasised that "alienating behaviour" must be evidenced as a behaviour, not diagnosed.
  • The "unregulated expert" controversy — Re C and subsequent cases have addressed concerns that unregulated psychotherapists were being instructed under s.13 without the qualifications a psychologist would have. The Family Justice Council 2024 guidance on alienating behaviours operationalises s.13(6)-(7) for these cases.
  • CAFCASS reports under s.41 are not "expert evidence" for s.13 purposes (per s.13(8)©) — meaning Guardians can opine on alienation patterns under s.41 without s.13 permission. This is a major structural advantage for the Guardian framework.

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):