Unregulated Experts in the Family Court: The New 2026 Rules and What Parents Need to Check

If somebody described as an “expert” is going to assess your parenting, your mental health, your child or the reasons why a child is refusing contact, their qualifications are not a technical detail.

Expert evidence can influence some of the most serious decisions the Family Court makes: where a child lives, whether contact takes place, whether it is supervised, how allegations of harm are understood and what intervention a parent may be expected to undertake.

Since 20 July 2026, the rules governing experts in children proceedings in England and Wales have changed.

New rule 25.5A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 now means that, in the children proceedings to which the rule applies, the court may generally only give permission for expert evidence from a regulated expert. There are defined exceptions, but an unregulated expert should no longer simply enter a case without the regulatory question being addressed.

For parents representing themselves, there is an equally important message:

“Regulated” does not mean “automatically right”.

You still need to understand what the expert has been asked to decide, whether that question is actually within their expertise, what evidence they relied upon, whether important material was omitted, whether their reasoning is sound and whether they have crossed the line between giving expert opinion and deciding facts that belong to the judge.

What changed on 20 July 2026?

The Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 amended Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules.

New rule 25.5A applies where the court is considering permission for expert evidence under section 13(1), (3) or (5) of the Children and Families Act 2014.

Subject to the exceptions in the rule, the court may only give that permission where the evidence comes from a regulated expert.

Rule 25.2 now defines a regulated expert as an expert who is:

• regulated by a UK statutory body;
• on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care; or
• regulated by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The accompanying amendments to Practice Directions 25B and 25C also bring regulatory status directly into the expert-instruction process. The Family Procedure Rules material explains that experts are required to confirm and provide evidence of their regulated status, while parties proposing an exception must address why no regulated expert is available.

Does the rule apply to every expert in every family case?

No. That distinction matters.

Rule 25.5A contains specific exceptions. The regulated-expert requirement does not apply in the same way to:

• an international social worker;
• a “technical expert” as defined by the Rules; or
• an expert instructed in proceedings under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.

The Rules define a technical expert as somebody providing expert evidence on:

• digital forensics;
• DNA testing;
• handwriting analysis; or
• toxicology testing.

That digital-forensics exception is particularly interesting as family proceedings increasingly involve disputed screenshots, recordings, metadata, devices and allegations that digital material has been altered or artificially generated.

The court can also permit another expert where no regulated expert is available.

For these purposes, the Rules provide that this may arise where the issue can only be resolved using expertise from someone who is not a regulated expert, or where instructing a regulated expert would cause significant delay which would not be in the child’s best interests.

If the court uses that exception, it must give reasons, including the steps taken to identify a regulated expert and why the proposed expert meets the standards in the annex to Practice Direction 25B.

Check the date your proceedings were issued

There is an important transitional provision.

The amendments concerning regulated experts do not apply to proceedings issued before the new provisions came into force on 20 July 2026.

So if you are dealing with an existing case, do not assume that the new rule automatically invalidates an expert who was previously instructed.

Equally, the fact that an older case falls outside new rule 25.5A does not mean the quality, expertise, methodology or proper use of expert evidence becomes irrelevant. Those are separate questions.

Why did the law change?

The reform did not emerge in a vacuum.

Family courts have faced serious scrutiny over the use of individuals presenting themselves as psychological experts in highly consequential children cases without the professional regulation that many parents would naturally assume accompanied the description “psychologist”.

The issue came into particularly sharp focus in Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38.

In that case, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, examined earlier proceedings in which psychological evidence had played a central role.

The judgment records that the expert concerned was neither a chartered psychologist nor registered with the Health and Care Professions Council.

But the judgment is important for a reason much wider than the status of one expert.

The President expressly said that the case was not simply about one individual. The judgment identified systemic failure involving the court and professionals responsible for protecting the children and prioritising their welfare.

The most important lesson from Re Y: experts do not decide the facts

This is the part litigants in person should understand.

In Re Y, serious allegations of domestic abuse and coercive control existed between the parents.

A fact-finding hearing had originally been contemplated.

Instead, expert psychological evidence came to dominate the process before the underlying factual matrix had properly been determined.

Looking back at that process in 2026, the President described it as fundamentally flawed.

The underlying principle is straightforward:

The judge decides the facts. The expert advises the court on matters requiring expertise on the basis of those facts. The expert does not replace the judge as fact-finder.

That distinction is especially important where allegations of domestic abuse sit alongside claims of alienating behaviour.

“Parental alienation” is not a diagnosis for an expert to impose

Re Y also reinforces the modern approach to allegations of alienating behaviour.

The court’s focus is not supposed to be a search for a label.

The relevant question is what behaviour actually occurred and what impact, if any, it had upon the child.

Where a child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to spend time with a parent, the court may need to examine why.

If domestic abuse is alleged, that may be highly significant. A child’s reluctance may potentially be an appropriate response to behaviour they have experienced or witnessed. Protective behaviour or trauma may also require consideration.

The court should not jump directly from:

“The child does not want contact”

to:

“The other parent must have alienated the child.”

Nor should an expert be used to bypass the factual investigation which the court itself needs to undertake.

My case has an expert. What should I check?

If expert evidence is proposed or already exists in your children case, start with the following questions.

1. What exactly is the expert being asked to do?

Find the court order giving permission for expert evidence and the letter of instruction.

Identify the questions the expert was actually authorised to answer.

Then compare those questions with the report.

Has the expert answered the instructed questions?

Have they gone significantly beyond them?

2. Was expert evidence actually necessary?

Expert evidence in children proceedings is not supposed to be commissioned merely because it might be interesting or useful.

Section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 imposes a necessity test in relevant children proceedings.

Ask what specialist issue existed which the court could not properly determine without expert evidence.

3. Is the expert regulated?

For proceedings within the new regime, identify:

• the relevant regulator or accredited register;
• the expert’s registration;
• whether it is current;
• the professional title under which they are regulated; and
• whether that regulated field actually matches the opinion they are giving.

A professional title can sound impressive while telling you very little about the precise scope of somebody’s regulated competence.

4. If the expert is not regulated, what exception is being relied upon?

Do not assume that “unregulated” automatically means impermissible.

Ask instead:

• Does rule 25.5A apply to these proceedings?
• Is this an exempt category of expert?
• Was the case issued before 20 July 2026?
• Has the court concluded that no regulated expert is available?
• If so, what reasons were given?

That is a much stronger procedural analysis than simply writing to the court saying, “This expert is unregulated so the report must be removed.”

5. Does the expert have expertise in the actual issue?

Regulation is a safeguard. It is not a substitute for relevant expertise.

A regulated professional can still be asked to give an opinion outside their proper specialist field.

Look at qualifications, professional experience, specialist training and the precise issue before the court.

6. What material did the expert receive?

Create a simple evidence audit.

List:

• documents provided to the expert;
• documents apparently not provided;
• people interviewed;
• people not interviewed;
• court findings available at the time;
• allegations that remained disputed; and
• important safeguarding material.

If an expert’s factual foundation is incomplete, that can affect the weight and reliability of the opinion.

7. Has allegation been converted into fact?

This is one of the most common problems in complex family-court paperwork.

Look carefully at the language.

Compare:

“The father alleges that…”

with:

“The father did…”

Or:

“The mother reports…”

with:

“The mother has…”

A few missing words can fundamentally alter the evidential status of a proposition.

8. Does the reasoning actually follow from the evidence?

Do not focus only on the conclusion.

Trace the reasoning:

source → fact or assumption → professional analysis → conclusion → recommendation.

If one part of that chain is unsupported, identify it precisely.

How to challenge an expert report without turning your statement into an attack

Parents understandably become distressed when a report makes serious statements about them or recommends a major change in their relationship with their child.

But a response which simply says the expert is “biased”, “corrupt”, “lying” or “incompetent” will rarely be the strongest way to address the problem.

A better approach is forensic.

For example:

Issue: The report states that I prevented contact throughout March.

Source: Paragraph 46 of the expert report.

Problem: The report does not identify the source for that statement and it conflicts with the contact-centre records dated 4, 11 and 18 March.

Why it matters: The conclusion at paragraph 78 appears partly to rely upon an asserted pattern of obstruction.

What I ask: That the expert clarify the evidential basis for paragraph 46 and whether the conclusion at paragraph 78 changes when the contact records are considered.

That gives the court something it can actually work with.

Do not privately instruct an expert and assume the court will accept the report

This is an important warning for litigants in person.

Expert evidence in children proceedings is controlled by the court.

Paying somebody privately to assess you, your child or the other parent does not mean their report can automatically be filed and relied upon in the proceedings.

Before spending potentially substantial sums of money, check whether court permission is required and what the existing case-management order says.

Do not arrange for a professional to assess a child for litigation purposes without first understanding the legal and procedural position.

What if an old order was heavily influenced by an unregulated expert?

This is where particular care is needed.

The 2026 rule change does not automatically reopen historic findings, exclude expert evidence that was admitted under the earlier regime or invalidate an old Child Arrangements Order.

Nor does disagreement with an expert report provide an automatic route to relitigate a case.

Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 is important because it examined earlier proceedings in which expert psychological evidence had come to dominate the case before the underlying factual allegations had properly been determined. The President set out the modern approach to expert evidence and alienating behaviour and considered the route by which earlier findings might be challenged.

But a later case, Re SB (A Child) (Alienating Behaviour: Application to Reopen Findings) [2026] EWFC 264, answers an important follow-on question:

If an older case would be approached differently under Re Y and modern Family Justice Council guidance, does that automatically mean the historic findings should be reopened?

No.

In Re SB, the mother applied under Part 18 to reopen findings made in 2020 that she had alienated her daughter from the father. She relied on Re Y and the modern approach to alienating behaviour.

The court dismissed the application.

The important point was that changed guidance and terminology did not, by themselves, establish that the earlier factual findings were wrong. The court went back to the original judgments, examined what the earlier judge had actually found, what evidence supported those findings and whether there were solid grounds for believing that the findings themselves required reconsideration.

Reopening findings is also different from appealing the original decision. An appeal generally asks whether the earlier decision was wrong when it was made. A reopening application asks whether there is now a proper basis for factual findings that would otherwise remain part of the case history to be reconsidered.

Depending on the circumstances, a person concerned about historic findings may need to consider a Part 18 application, an application to vary or discharge an existing order in which reopening is sought, or in some circumstances an appeal.

The correct route is case-specific.

If an old case involved expert evidence, useful questions include:

• What findings did the judge actually make?
• Were those findings based upon the judge’s evaluation of evidence, or did the process allow expert opinion to substitute for judicial fact-finding?
• Were relevant domestic-abuse allegations determined before conclusions were drawn about alienating behaviour?
• What was the expert’s regulatory and professional status?
• Was the opinion within the expert’s actual field of expertise?
• What material did the expert receive and what was omitted?
• Was the methodology challenged at the time?
• Has genuinely significant new evidence or information emerged?
• Do the old findings continue to affect current welfare decisions?

Those questions require careful analysis of the judgments, orders, professional reports and underlying evidence. They should not be reduced to “the rules changed, therefore my old order is invalid.”

AI can help audit an expert report — but it cannot decide whether the expert is right

This is also an area where legal technology can be genuinely useful if used carefully.

For a long expert report and a substantial case file, digital tools can assist with:

• extracting every factual proposition relied upon by the expert;
• mapping propositions back to source documents;
• comparing dates;
• identifying apparent contradictions;
• building a chronology;
• locating where allegations have been repeated across reports; and
• comparing the report against the questions in the letter of instruction.

But AI should not be asked to make the final judgment that an expert is “biased”, that an allegation is true or that a psychological opinion is clinically unsound.

AI can identify a discrepancy.

A human still has to verify it against the original evidence.

And confidential Family Court material should never simply be uploaded to an external AI service without considering confidentiality, data protection, reporting restrictions and how that service handles the material.

A practical expert-report audit for litigants in person

If you are facing an expert report, create a table with these headings:

This is usually far more useful than writing a 20-page narrative response saying that everything in the report is wrong.

Seven questions to take to the next hearing

1. Does the new regulated-expert rule apply to my proceedings?
2. What regulator or accredited register covers this expert?
3. What precise issue requires expert evidence?
4. What has the court authorised the expert to answer?
5. Which facts are established and which remain allegations?
6. Has the expert considered the relevant evidence on both sides?
7. What specific clarification, direction or decision am I asking the court to make?

That last question matters.

Identifying a problem is only half the job. The court also needs to understand what you say should happen next.

Why this reform matters beyond expert witnesses

The regulated-expert reform reflects a broader principle which family justice needs to take seriously.

Authority should not be confused with evidence.

A statement does not become a fact merely because it appears in a professional report.

An expert’s conclusion does not replace the court’s responsibility to determine disputed facts.

A professional title does not remove the need to examine expertise, methodology and reasoning.

And a parent challenging a report should not have to become a psychologist in order to point out that the evidential foundation is wrong.

For litigants in person, the strongest approach is usually not to attack the person.

Audit the process.

Audit the evidence.

Audit the reasoning.

Then show the court precisely where the problem lies.

Need help responding to an expert report or organising the evidence?

JSH Law supports litigants in person dealing with complex private family proceedings.

We can help you turn a large case file into a structured working case, including:

• auditing expert, Cafcass and Section 7 reports against the underlying evidence;
• organising evidence and identifying evidential gaps;
• preparing chronologies and timelines;
• structuring witness and position statements;
• preparing focused responses to Cafcass or professional evidence;
• organising appeal or reopening paperwork where appropriate;
• urgent court documents;
• hearing preparation; and
• McKenzie Friend and hearing support where available.

The aim is not to turn every disagreement into an allegation of professional failure. It is to make sure the court can see, quickly and accurately, what the evidence actually shows and what remains unresolved.

Book a consultation with JSH Law if you need practical help preparing your case.

Key sources

• Family Procedure Rules — current updates and 2026 amendments
• Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026, SI 2026/699
• Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38
• Re SB (A Child) (Alienating Behaviour: Application to Reopen Findings) [2026] EWFC 264
• Family Procedure Rule Committee — regulated experts consultation and supporting material