Senior judge issues guidance on instruction of un-regulated psychologists in Family Court

/ Mike Buchanan

Interesting.

If you’d like a daily summary of our previous 24 hours’ posts, enter your email address in the box underneath SIGN UP FOR DAILY NOTIFICATIONS in the right-hand column.

You can make a one-off donation or take out a monthly subscription to support our work here.

Nobody working for the party draws an income from the party’s income streams. You can help Mike Buchanan meet his personal living expenses through his Patreon page, or send him some Bitcoin, his account is 1EfWxqDAtgJDCR3tVpvVj4fXSuUu4S9WJf. Thank you.

Our Facebook page is here, YouTube channel here, Twitter account here.

2 thoughts on “Senior judge issues guidance on instruction of un-regulated psychologists in Family Court”

  1. “What follows is not intended to change or to amend what is said in the FJC/BPS guidance or in the President’s Memorandum. It draws, where appropriate, on the ACP guidance and on Ms Mills’ [counsel for the Association of Clinical Psychologists-UK’s] submissions, but in doing so the court is conscious that this material is generated by a single campaigning association, and is not material emanating from a regulatory body or an office holder/official body within the Family Justice system.”

    this is the bit that concerns me
    the single campaigning association?
    if this was a group campaigning for awareness of PA , then I’m concerned that they are targetting dissenters who are campaigning for fairness.
    The regulated Psychologist “community” who are supposed to be experts are unfortunately incredibly biased against men/fathers ( as we have seen in their “toxic masculinity” mantra) and therefore I would not rely on them to be credible because they are not willing to challenge their own bias or current orthodoxy, but rather protect their own status quo ( like politicians) which means children lose out( lets face it, like they give a damm about equality for gender). The judges in family courts are just as culpable, since they have the capability for critical thinking that they apply to law( but yet somehow won’t use it to scrutinize “experts”).

    These organizations should be reviewing the current evidence of PA annually( and not just their favourites sources) and demonstrating that the current thinking can withstand any challenges.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment