Finally, so-called “parental alienation” expert Melanie Gill has been discredited in the family court (see below), but it’s taken much too long – and the mother and daughters in this case are still separated.  Gill has been backed by judges and has benefitted from the “patronage” of Sir Andrew McFarlane, head of the Family Division. In 2018 he and Gill shared a platform at the annual conference of Families Need Fathers, the misogynist group of domestic violence deniers which is embedded in family court. See our twitter post.

McFarlane sided with Gill against a mother who challenged her competence in a court case known as “Re C” – he ordered the mother to pay costs of about £26,000 to the respondent father and £20,000 to Gill as punishment for daring to appeal.

McFarlane is the UK representative of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) a right-wing American ‘think tank’ which promotes the nuclear family and sexist views, linked to the Christian right. Gill is also a member. They promote allegations of ‘parental alienation’ against protective mothers and mandatory shared care even when there has been domestic abuse. Their members include ‘unregulated experts’ who, like Gill, press for enforced reunification with abusive fathers.

We don’t know how many children have been torn from their loving mothers on the “evidence” of Gill, but all such cases MUST be urgently reviewed.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Hannah Summers 23 October 2025

Landmark decision could prompt challenges to other cases involving unregulated expert Melanie Gill.

A mother has won a landmark legal battle to overturn the evidence of an unregulated psychologist that resulted in her losing custody of her daughters.

For the last five years, Sarah* has only been allowed to see her children under strict supervision once a fortnight after Melanie Gill told a family court judge she was a “narcissist” who had alienated her kids from their father.

As a result, the judge ordered that the girls should live with their dad – a decision made against the advice of a social worker and despite allegations by the children that he had mistreated them.

The success of the case to disregard the evidence – which was supported by our reporting – could open the door to challenges to other decisions influenced by Gill, an unregulated expert believed to have given evidence in hundreds of family court cases.

I’ve been treated like a criminal. The damage caused will stay with me for a lifetime

Sarah, mother of two

Sarah is able to talk about her case for the first time after the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) secured permission to report on it. The mother says the ordeal has done irreparable damage to her relationship with her children, who were six and nine when they were taken from her.

She was initially prevented from seeing or speaking to them for 18 weeks on the advice of Gill. Since then she has only been allowed to meet them for two hours once a fortnight with a supervisor writing down everything that is said.

“I’ve been treated like a criminal,” she told TBIJ. “Before the criticism from Gill and the main judge in my case there were no complaints about my parenting. The girls were safe and happy. I was a full-time mum.

“The damage caused by Melanie Gill and the catastrophic impact of her recommendations adopted by the court will stay with me and my girls for a lifetime.”

For the last five years Sarah has not seen or spoken to her daughters on Christmas Day or on Mother’s Day. “I’ve missed out on all the important milestones in their lives: school plays, birthdays, sports days, first periods, graduations,” she said.

Now a high court judge has ruled that Gill’s report – for which she was paid £10,688 – and the subsequent findings should be disregarded because they were based on a “mistaken foundation”.

The ruling sets a crucial precedent that could prompt legal challenges by other women who have had their children taken from them after assessments by Gill. It comes after TBIJ and Tortoise exposed the psychologist’s “dangerous” views about domestic abuse in an undercover investigation earlier this year.

Gill’s career advising judges spans more than 15 years and she says she has given evidence in up to 200 cases. Her opinions have led to the removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers – including in cases where the fathers had been found to be abusive.

A former music promoter with a third-class degree in psychology, Gill built a name for herself as an expert witness diagnosing “parental alienation”, which is when a child rejects one parent because they have been turned against them by the other.

The concept is now recognised as a harmful pseudoscience that is often used to discredit claims of domestic abuse.

Charlotte Proudman, a family barrister, said she works on around 150 family cases a year featuring allegations of domestic abuse or rape.

“In around 95% of these there are counter allegations of parental alienation,” she said.

“Often a ‘PA expert’ will be brought in and I’ve seen scores of child removals as a result. It doesn’t matter if that child protests or runs away or even attempts suicide.

“Their complaints about a parent will be seen as a product of ‘alienation’ and they will be forced to live with that potentially unsafe parent.”

Cross allegations

Sarah made an application for the children to live with her after leaving the family home in May 2018 and securing a protective order against her ex from the family court.

The children did not see their father for six weeks with Sarah reporting allegations of emotional, financial and sexual abuse against him to the court – allegations he has consistently denied.

He told the court that Sarah was “alienating” the children from him and raised concerns about her mental health.

A district judge made limited findings of domestic abuse against each parent but said the findings were not serious enough to prevent the children spending time with either of them. There were no findings of “alienation” at that time.

However, such allegations were raised again by the father after the sisters complained about him to their school and GP in April 2019. They said he had sent them outside in the cold and dark, and had manhandled the eldest girl, hitting her head and causing a bruise to her chest.

A social worker who visited the girls had noted both children reported they were sometimes scared when with their father.

In a later report the social worker said there was nothing to suggest they were being coached by their mother. She recommended that the girls live with her and see their father on alternative weekends.

The father denied the allegations and claimed the girls were being influenced by Sarah. He wanted the opinion of a psychologist and requested Gill, who was brought onto the case and agreed by all parties.

She said the children had suffered emotional harm as a result of their mother’s parenting and said Sarah’s “narcissism” could make her prone to “vengeful anger”.

Gill said they were being alienated from their father and that they should live with him and undergo a package of therapy.

After the psychologist filed her report in July 2020 the father applied to the court the same day for the children to be immediately removed from Sarah’s care.

Three days later at an urgent hearing held remotely, district judge Taylor accepted Gill’s recommendations and gave Sarah just two hours to get the children ready. The manner in which they were forcibly taken was “extremely traumatising”, says Sarah.

Court papers note: “The children objected very strongly both verbally and physically to the ‘two-week holiday’ with their father and had to be physically carried away.”

The decision for them to remain living with him was confirmed two months later at a final hearing at which Gill gave evidence.

She advised that Sarah should have no unsupervised contact with her daughters until she had undergone a specialist type of therapy – ‘schema therapy’, which is not available on the NHS. This was accepted by Taylor who gave his final judgment in September 2020.

Three months later Sarah made an unsuccessful attempt to appeal the orders.

Building a case

This year the mother’s legal team built a case to challenge the judge’s findings using new guidance which reflects the growing concerns about the use of “parental alienation” in family law disputes.

It includes case law from a landmark 2022 appeal known as “Re C”, which was overseen by the president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. He said parental alienation cannot be diagnosed by an expert and instead a judge should look at factual matters including the specific behaviours of a parent.

This was backed up by new guidelines published in December which say court-appointed psychologists should be regulated and should not be asked to look for “alienating behaviours”. There can be many reasons for a child to reject a parent and domestic abuse could be one justifiable explanation, the guidance adds.

Sarah’s barrister, Justin Ageros, said the new guidance means Gill, who is not registered with the appropriate regulator, would no longer be used by the family courts.

(The committee that sets the rules around family cases in England and Wales has also put out to public consultation a proposal to ban unregulated experts with a decision due to be made imminently.)

It was also put to the court that comments Gill made during the undercover investigation by TBIJ and Tortoise “give rise to serious concerns as to Ms Gill’s objectivity”. Extensive comments she made were submitted in court documents to support Sarah’s case.

During undercover calls with a reporter posing as a father on the verge of a custody dispute, Gill said she could “advise one side” – despite court experts being jointly instructed and having a duty to act impartially.

And Gill – who during the calls described McFarlane as “weak” and “soppy as hell” – complained about “radical feminism”, “utterly biased female judges” and that the courts focus too much on “domestic violence against women”.

Gill, who did not respond when contacted for this article, said at the time that our interpretation of her comments was “distorted”.

Findings without ‘solid foundation’

Presenting Sarah’s case in court, Ageros said that Gill’s conclusions had been used as an alternative to the judge investigating the truth of the children’s allegations about their father.

He told Judd: “The idea of these girls being removed after a 50 minute remote hearing where no evidence was heard and the views of Melanie Gill were simply accepted is, in my submission, deeply concerning.”

On behalf of the father, Judi Evans argued Taylor had not relied entirely on Gill’s evidence, which matched his “independent view” of Sarah’s lack of willingness to promote a relationship between the father and the children.

I find it mind-boggling that judges have been ordering that children are taken from their parents based on the diagnosis of a non-existent syndrome by this so-called expert

Charlotte Proudman, family barrister

Giving judgment at a hearing in July, Mrs Justice Judd explained that – in light of the president’s remarks in the ‘Re C’ case – any findings made against the parents before Gill became involved in the case could still be relied on but “any findings of alienation purported to be made by Ms Gill” could not.

She explained: “Nor, following that, can any findings that are made by the judge.” Judd added that she did not blame him for his decision as his judgment pre-dated the guidance and the president’s remarks.

She said Taylor had failed to investigate Sarah’s specific behaviours or to explore possible alternative reasons for the children’s resistance to their father. She said there was no finding with a “solid foundation that the mother alienated the children”.

Judd added: “Gill’s report is based very much on attachment science and her assessment of the parents is through that prism. It makes it very hard to retain any of what she says as a base for future decision making.”

Proudman, who says she has been involved in a number of cases where Gill has been the expert, told TBIJ: “I’ve seen it first hand but I still find it completely mind-boggling that judges have been ordering that children are taken from their parents based on the diagnosis of a non-existent syndrome by this so-called expert and others like her. It is a scandal that needs to be urgently addressed.”

She added that Judd’s ruling could have “significant ramifications for other families which have been torn apart because of false diagnoses which are wrongly accepted by judges.”

The father in the case told TBIJ he has always had the children’s welfare and best interests at the forefront of his mind. He said: “There is no criticism of me in the court’s decision or judgment of 30th July 2025 and despite multiple allegations made by my ex-wife the court has found no evidence to support these.”

Next steps

Judd said the issue of “alienating behaviours” would not be re-examined. Instead, there should be a fresh assessment of Sarah’s children to decide what is best for them going forward and what kind of a relationship they should have with their mother. She said neither Gill’s report, nor Taylor’s judgment should be taken into account when the court makes that new assessment.

But that process is set to take six months. Meanwhile, at a hearing last week, another judge varied the arrangements under which Sarah can see her children meaning the fortnightly contact can be unsupervised going forward.

Sarah said Judd’s decision to disregard Gill’s evidence is “a huge relief” but she is deeply critical of the family court for its role in the trauma she has suffered. “I feel like I barely know my daughters because our time together has been so restrictive,” she said.

“My concerns about Gill’s methods and actions were entirely dismissed by the judge. He simply threw his complete trust into this random individual, against the advice of other professionals, and with no checks or safeguarding measures for those whose lives she was given the power to destroy – and she did.”

* Name has been changed